text:
Have Recent Events Made it More Likely for You to Own a Gun?
Discussion on gun control, ownership and use has come to the forefront locally and nationally. Vote in our poll on the matter, and participate in the comments.
Three high-profile shooting deaths in the Milwaukee area since August — coupled with mass shootings in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT — have heightened the national dialogue on gun ownership and control.
It's also increased the interest in Americans of owning guns. Sellers across the country reported surges in business following the Newtown elementary school shooting, and the head of the National Rifle Association called for armed security in schools.
Meanwhile, Democrats plan to introduce federal legislation to ban production of high-capacity magazines, according to the Huffington Post.
Have recent events made it more likely you would own a gun for personal safety? Or have they squelched any notion of owning one? Finally, have events and discussions caused you to change your mind on the issue in any way? Vote in our poll and join the discussion in the comments.
Patch coverage
Patch commentary
3:38 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
No! I would NEVER own a gun. It's not worth it. What's the big deal of having a gun. Look at all the lives that have been taken away. I feel sorry for ALL the families that lost loved ones. Due to crazy people who own guns.
alt ideas needed
4:47 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
what are you going when a crazed mad man breaks into your house and keeps marching upstairs towards you and your family?
7:28 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Usually people who own the guns are responsible owners. It's the people who obtain guns illegally or steal them who are crazy or just unstable. Your statement that it's due to "crazy" people who own guns is just incorrect. I myself choose not to have guns in the house but I also don't think it's fair to ban all guns. I probably would support banning the gun style used at Sandy Hook but not a total ban on all guns.
Mike Itzenhuiser
9:22 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
There will never be a ban on guns. Crazy or not, people will always have them. Don't get your panties in a bundle michelle. If you're getting assaulted, raped, robbed, stabbed, beaten etc..... I promise not to help you with my guns.
Keith Best
11:04 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I refuse to be a victim. I will protect myself and my family WITH A GUN if I have to. If I never have to pull it out all the better, but as I said, I refuse to be a victim.
John Wilson
11:09 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Keith Best -
You already are a victim... both of your own ignorance and the NRA...
5:58 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Democrats plan to do more than that. This is an all out attack on the 2nd amendment period. Its another step in total disarmament of the people. Same crap they pulled in Austraila.
Here ya go have a read for yourself. Dont Tread On US!!
Mike Itzenhuiser
9:29 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Hey Patriot.....Counting on the media to support your comment is like counting on a 3 month old to cook your dinner.
9:37 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Absolutely Mike. Its really pointless having this debate with those who are honestly uninformed and only know the media talking points. I know like you I never leave home without it now. Its sad but that is what our world has come to.
7:38 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
The gov does not have to take your guns away , all they have to is ban all ammunitation sales.
Anjou E
11:29 am on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
I pity those who live in such fear that they need weapons to make themselves feel powerful. I have the ability to kill. I don't need a gun to do it. I have the responsibility not to kill. I believe in disabling and disarming. Don't come to my house wussy people. You could get hurt which is worse than being dead. Then you can go to jail, where they won't let you play vigilante.
Get real! Most people will NEVER be the victim of a violent crime.
11:41 am on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Anjou-You seriously do not understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment do you? Well god forbid they try and disarm us and succeed. As China or some other foriegn power comes strolling in know the American people have been disarmed. Why do you think we have never been invaded? Anjou your an idiot!!!! Sorry for my choice of words but you seriously have NO CLUE. My guess is your not even born in this Country and quite possibly an Illegal
1:01 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Anjou - let me guess... you're one of those "low information" voters, eh? Do you have a smoke detector in your house? Most people will NEVER have their house burn down.
You may be powerful able to disarm. What about those who may not be as "powerful" as you?
2:04 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
@Darrel- Bingo you hit the nail on the head. LOW INFORMATION VOTER who only knows biased media talking points
6:01 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I was thinking about buying another gun , and getting my wife trained. Michelle, that knife in your kitchen isn't going to help much and neither will your phone.You will be harmed before the police get there. You are the CRAZY one.
John Wilson
11:12 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
You probably are not aware that more spouses are killed by their spouses, than any imaginary "crazy" man entering their home, usually with a gun purchased for PROTECTION!
11:37 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
I'd be interested to see most spouses are killed by their spouse with a gun. I'd agree many people are killed by their spouse and I'd also agree a gun is not uncommon but I'd like to see that statistic. Although it really doesn't mean anything since people have killed a spouse with cars, knives, strangulation, poisoning and the list goes on. If someone wants it done it will be accomplished.
Dan Vitek
6:23 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The laws need to be changed on comminting mental deficiency ill people ,looking at the mass shooters they all had mental problems and stopped taking there meds the only way to deal with them is to keep them in the mental hospitals
6:34 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I would love to be able to afford a few more handguns, but since mein furer continues to ignore the economic spiral as he looks for new and exciting ways to continue to remove rights from we the people and swing them over to "his" government, I will have to rely on foceably taking the handgun the irs agent will be carrying when he comes to get my checking account info to illegally pay my obummocare fines......Not an event I look forward to, but will most likely be the norm in the coming years.
7:01 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Tony-Brother I stand with you!!! TAke a peek at this and then you decide what they are really trying to do.
7:21 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Thats why the 2nd offers us the right to carry guns against a corrupt obamament. (government)
Steve Ebbie
7:25 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
"mein furer"???
All the nuts are not in the trees. Sad.
Hide in your basement, they're coming for you.
Mike Itzenhuiser
9:32 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Hahahaha!! That was a good one Steve Ebbie! {:-D)
Steve Ebbie
7:32 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I have hunted all my life. Own a variety of guns: shotguns, rifles, pistols and black powder. I've never needed more than two shots to take game. I remember the first time Barrack Obama was elected there was a run on ammunition because people were scared. Hope ammo has a long shelf life. I know fear does.
I really don't see the need for 30, 50 or 100 round clips unless you are a professional in a tactical situation. IMHO
7:37 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
What about an 11...or you have a target rifle with a hand grip or simply a thumb hole in the stock...Fact is, if this page is being monitored, and since obama just Friday signed law that says it can and should be, they may very well be on their way. But dont worry, I am prepared as always with my "assault style" pistol......at which point they will be putting me into a "tactical situation"
General Batguano
8:40 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tony, it always gives me a chuckle to hear people say "I am prepared". If the government wanted your guns, they'd come and get them. With their SWAT teams, flash bangs, tear gas, night vision, fully automatic rifles, sniper rifles, armored troop carriers, drones, helicopters, artillery, tanks, attack planes, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons -- I don't think your "assault style" pistol is a big deterrent.
11:24 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
General, If the government started to confiscate weapons, Believe me when I say, you would have an all out war on your hands. They wouldnt stand a chance.
General Batguano
12:01 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
KHD, I see your point. If the government truly wanted to confiscate weapons, they would first announce that they were going to confiscate all weapons, then they would simultaneously send local sheriffs to the houses of gun owners and call over the megaphone, "Come out with all your weapons."
This would trigger well-trained, well-coordinated and disciplined army of gun owners to unleash their master plan (codenamed "Fantasy"). They'd communicate over the phone systems and the internet that the government forgot to shut down or monitor. They'd shoot their way through military roadblocks and barricades and link-up to seize the police stations, military bases, and communications networks; effectively rendering the government incapable of counter attack.
When it was all over, crowds of meek non-gun owners would pour into the streets and raise the victors on high.
(Full disclosure: I AM a gun owner.)
Johnny Blade
10:30 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
I didn't know the 2nd Amendment was about hunting ..blah blah i kill with one shot, you mean you have a sniper rifle, thats next to be banned
The "general" another idiot .. so is this working in Afganistan they banned guns there .. so Americans will kill their neighbor to take thier guns .. you should give them up just like the jews did in Germany .. Molon Labe Azzhat General
8:12 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Tony & Patriot ... they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you. Here they come !
8:14 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Maybe what Tony means when he says he's prepared is that he put on a diaper so when they come and he shits in his pants it won't run down his leg.
Bob Meirkatze
7:39 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
No law abiding gun owner ever committed murder. All gun laws do is ensure there are disarmed victims for criminals with guns to target. "Gun Free Zones" and uber strict gun lawz have been an abject failure. If they were effective, VA Tech, et al. would not have happened and Chicago, NYC and DC would be safest cities in was America. Heck, the term "going postal" was coined during the federal assault weapons ban. The answer is not more gun laws to infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
General Batguano
8:42 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Absolutely brilliant: "no law abiding gun owner ever committed murder". Unquestionably 100% accurate.
Julie Fullerton
11:07 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tell that to Jennifer Sebana's family. And that's just in the last week. If you're going to make a point, please make it truthful.
11:22 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Julie I believe they mean he is no longer a law abiding gun owner because he committed murder. I believe I more than most am sensitive to that situation but in a respectful manner I believe that's what they mean.
11:30 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
We're all law-abiding until we commit our first crime. We're almost all of us sane until we fall prey to a mental illness. Sane, law-abiding citizens can purchase guns and then become neither sane nor law-abiding.
So how do we deal with this fact in an imperfect world?
11:41 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Randy I've asked the same question and unfortunately there is no effective answer. It is perfectly legal to be crazy and live in the world. One can hear voices and see things that aren't there but until clear evidence is there somewhat is an immediate threat to themself or others the law allows them to be on their own. So do you change that law and who is the one to judge when someone is "crazy enough"? So do you take people that will probably not hurt anyone and take their freedom? Do you take away people's right to own a gun because "guns kill people"? I don't have a good answer but I think you have to lean towards not violating people's rights.
Brian Carlson
12:51 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
What a dillusion. Do you think the mass murderers were born as mass murderers? Until you kill someone you are law abiding. That being the case...everyone who murders someone WAS a law abiding citizen....at some point. Postal killers had not murdered other people before. Come on Bob.
John Wilson
11:18 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Bob Meirkatze -
Every law abiding person who eventually killed someone, was once one of the great mass of law abiding citizens...
John Wilson
11:21 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Randy1949 -
Go for it, I do believe you are on to something here; too bad it is all lost on the gun crazy crowd in the clown car...
Fire Fly
8:34 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Gee Julie tell us why your not @ the High School anymore .
7:51 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Gun bans simply don't work. As the old saying goes, "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Illinois has the most aggressive gun restrictions in the country and Chicago has had over 500 homicides in the last year. And Rahm Emanuel, who critcized the NRA proposal to put an armed officer in every school has been taking that exact same approach for some time now. When the Columbine shooting occurred there was an active ban on assault rifles signed into law by Bill Clinton. One of the weapns specifically mention in the legislation, the TEC-9, was used at Columbine. Last time I checked, heroin and cocaine were illegal but I think its fair to say that it hasn't stopped people from using them. Bans simply don't work. In short, yes, I will be buying a gun.
8:11 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
OOoops, and lets not forget the 1,352 "shootings"....yup - gun control is clearly working top notch!
8:18 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
My husband owns quite a few guns....legally. I have no idea how to access the locked cabinet and don't intend to find out. Hopefully he will be able to protect me if an intruder breaks into our home. In some of the past year's incidents, a citizen carrying a gun MIGHT have thwarted a tragedy, but I think in most cases it would have made no difference. Did the young woman police officer have her gun with her? Apparently it didn't save her life either. RIP Jennifer.
11:19 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Karen, her HUSBAND ambushed her. She wasn't expecting that. Not a good comparison
11:26 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Actually, from the published accounts, Officer Sebena WAS expecting trouble from her husband. In his own words, when she saw him, she went for her weapon.
11:44 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Randy lets be reasonable. I don't believe she was expecting her husband to ambush her in the dark at 4am at the Tosa FD. That is unexpected. Lets not discuss this tragic event.
11:46 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
And if that's your argument, every police officer and member of the military "expects" danger so in your argument no officer or military member can ever be the victim of an ambush.
John Wilson
11:26 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Karen -
I thnik you have more of a threat from your husband than you do from anyone else...
8:20 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
KHD ... like an intruder is going to wake you up and allow you the time to get your gun and shoot him.
1:32 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Bucky someone forcing entry into your house and slowly walking down your unlit hallway stumbling into things or alerting you with a flashlight is not an ambush. An ambush would be them waiting for you as you step out your front door. Big difference.
8:32 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
As I have stated in another article posted on patch, something needs to change with our mental health laws in this country. It is nearly impossible to get help for those in need of inpatient or counseling unless the person with the problems agrees to it. People with mental health rarely think they have a problem and the families hands are tied. Karen- I have the same situation in my home, although my husband wants to show me how to use a gun, which isn't a bad idea in case he isn't there to protect me.
8:41 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Banning certain type of weapons such as the AR15/M4(assault style rifle) would only be done by uneducated people. They are not fully auto rifles and most of them only shoot .223 caliber bullet which is much smaller than most deer hunting ammunition. A .223 bullet is almost a squirrel hunting bullet but just in a gun that looks different. I will agree the magazine capacity is normally larger than a standard hunting rifle (20/30) but even reducing the capacity will not reduce mass murders. Several mass murders have been done with low capacity pistol magazines. Anyone with a small amount of training can change a magazine in 1 second. And those that believe in banning these firearms, let me ask this...Do you know fully auto firearms are completely legal to own? An additional fee is paid to the govt and certain requirements must be met but fully auto is legal so why outlaw a gun that only shoots one bullet per trigger pull while fully auto guns are perfectly legal?
John Wilson
11:35 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Str8shooter -
You probably do not realize that a .223 bullet tumbles as it is shot and creates enough damage to cut a rabbit in half; of course, semi-automatic may be converted to full auto in a matter of minutes by just about anyone with a "kit" or a little basic knowledge of firearms.
Just trying to keep it real here...
2:22 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Wilson: Where are you getting your information?
Wrong and wrong.
If you are going to keep it real, at least keep it truthful.
John Wilson
11:06 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Craig –
I get most of my information – on firearms – from various internet sites, including Bushmaster.com and my brother who spent over 20-years in the Special Forces, he also has his own gun shop in Phoenix. He is one of the NOT CRAZY members of the NRA.
You tell me what model of semiautomatic rifle you have, let me work on for 15-minutes, and I will give you a full automatic back; incidentally, full automatic rifles are illegal for civilians in all states. Furthermore, I have used .223 ammunition and I have seen first-hand what it does.
Finally, I am not really into killing a human being over a 60" HDTV or any other personal property; this is America, where we honor and respect human life. If you enter my house and rip off my personal property, then I will call the police and let them handle that; if you come to my home and pose a legitimate threat – sort of like "legitimate rape" – to my life, I would just have to put you down.
Now that is keeping it both real and truthful…
8:28 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Shooter ... A .223 bullet is almost a squirrel hunting bullet ? A .223 bullet if properly placed can kill any anything if it takes out a vital area.
11:43 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Does no one read? A .223 is a "glorified" .22 which is used for squirrel hunting. A .223 travels faster but is still a very small bullet. Yes as I stated any bullet can kill. I've seen a .22 kill but a .223 is closest to a squirrel hunting bullet than all of the deer hunting rifles. As I also stated a .223 was illegal for decades to use for deer hunting while many handguns were legal because a .223 does not cause the damage that those handguns cause.
Tom Bosworth
8:43 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Choosing not to own a gun is fine, but the idea that no one should be allowed to is not. Neither is prohibiting others from choosing high capacity magazines. The Korean shopkeepers who stood on their roofs with "assault rifles" to protect their stores during the Rodney King riots were the only thing which prevented their destruction, and quite likely their own deaths.
High capacity magazines are essential for resisting multiple assailant attacks. You may believe that you will never be in such a situation. That's fine: your life, your choice. Other people live in different situations, and they as reasonable and responsible people have the right to make their owned visions as well. A shopkeeper in Oakland lives in a very different world from those in Fox Point or Bayside, WI. Bans don't work: they just disarm victims without stopping murderers and rapists.
Tom Bosworth
8:57 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Darn auto-complete! That was supposed to read "make their own decisions as well." sorry!
John Wilson
11:37 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tom Bosworth -
The 2nd Amendment effectively eliminates the 1st Amendment...
Rees Roberts
12:00 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Your comment about "The 2nd Amendment effectively eliminates the 1st Amendment." is about the least informed comment I have ever read here. How in the world is constitutionally protected speech in the 1st Amendment at risk from the right of the people to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? If anything the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment. Unbelievable.
John Wilson
12:45 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Rees Roberts -
It saddens me to hear of someone with such a paucity of reading experience, either in life or on the Patch.
Those who have the guns control the behavior of all; guns are meant to either kill you or control you.
When a man confronts you with a gun, aimed at you, please tell him all about how the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS your precious rights to free speech under the 1st Amendment!
People in Egypt and Libya are being PROTECTED daily by the 2nd Amendment…
Beyond Unbelievable!
Johnny Blade
10:37 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
You are right Commie John .. When ONLY the government has guns there is NO 1st Amendment look at North Korea or China .. all dissidents in the Gulag .. Nice work Commie troll
Johnny Blade
12:55 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Commie John ... How does your Brother stand you being an Anti-Freedom Commie ...If your tale is even true
8:53 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Karen - I can make the same argument that armed suspects have guns but luckily almost always the police win. Well why would a suspect with a gun not win that battle? So to use a half truth about a deceased hero is uncalled for. Anyone can lose an ambush attack. But we have armed police, armed military, and armed security guards at places we suspect a bad guy with a gun could be. Why do we do that? It's because we know a good guy with a gun reduces the risk to all of us that don't have guns. I don't believe everyone should own a gun. It's a personal choice. But how fortunate for many of the politicians that want to vote to take guns away have armed security with them sometimes 24 hours a day.
Charlie DeSando
9:01 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
No desire to own a gun. Guns are not made for protection, they are made to kill people. The 2nd Amendment, as up held by the SCOTUS, is the law of the land. However, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about high capacity magazines, semi-automatic weapons or assault style rifles. There is no need for a civilian to have that level of fire power.
9:20 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Typical uninformed voter!! You really have no clue. Do you even know what an assualt rifle is? It is not anything we as civilians can purchase. Not unless you obtain a stamp to do so or are a class 3 dealer. An assualt rifle has the ability to be used as a single shot ie semi auto, 3 round burst or full auto. The bushmaster is a semi auto rifle single shot with each pull of the trigger. Same as a semi auto hand gun. Educate yourself before taking on the media talking points
Keith Best
11:08 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The only "assault rifles" are carried by police or the military. Just because it looks like one, doesn't make it so..... for a true "assault rifle" is fully automatic, as in machine gun.
Blair Nielsen
9:04 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
General batcrap-
The government isn't going to take EVERYONES gun with a away with a swat team.
Unquestionably 100% inatccurate
9:16 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Charlie if someone armed with a knife breaks into your house a gun will definitely be for protection. What will you do? Call the police? Well they will have guns. I don't have any problem with your choice not to own a gun. I'm not a diehard thinking the govt is coming to take all our guns but guns do have a place. Until the many other issues get solved such as mental health issues, criminals doing real jail time to keep them off the streets, and getting guns away from criminals...guns will always have a place if one chooses to utilize their constitutional right.
Charlie DeSando
9:30 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
If you read my comment, we don't disagree about the Constitutional right to own guns. I just never had the desire to own one and never will. We just don't need ordinary citizens armed with assault rifles and with high capacity magazines in them.
9:34 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Charlie-Okay I will just purchase an auto loading 30-06. Would that be okay because it does not carry the label as an assualt rifle? Even though it functions the same. Only difference is it dont look scary.
10:59 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Charlie I never said we did disagree about the 2nd amendment. What my point towards you is that guns are so often used in protection. It seems many of us in this forum have disagreed with just parts of what you said. That doesn't mean all of it.
11:07 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Str8shooter -- If someone breaks into my house armed with a knife, I have a sword (no kidding) and I know how to use it. It gives me a longer reach than any knife could. Against a gun, I'm probably toast anyway.
Although, the one thing that might make me consider buying gun for home protection would be a series of armed home invasions in my area. Even so, I doubt I'd be able to access and load a gun that was properly locked up in time during an incident like that.
11:31 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Randy - the appropriate training would teach you that the person reacting will always lose to the aggressor in that situation. I have no problem if you choose not to own a gun. I don't believe it's for everyone. But I also know a sword is not an effective tool against an edged weapon even if it is longer. I also know that if I hear someone breaking into my house I will have a loaded gun in hand in seconds while a burglar is fumbling around with the door, locks, window, dark unlit hallways, etc. it comes down to having a warrior mindset when it comes to the life of oneself and family. It may not always work but I could not live with myself if I knew I could save my family and chose not to be prepared. It's a right that I have and everyone should have if they choose to exercise it.
Lyle Ruble
1:59 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Str8shooter....What is the probability that you will confronted by someone breaking into your home while you are there? I suspect it isn't very high, but you have a loaded weapon ready for such an occurrence. What's more dangerous, a loaded gun ready for use or the low probability of an armed intruder?
2:11 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Well armed home invasions in milw Co has been on a huge increase recently per area PDs and the news but that's not really the point. I'm confused on the question as to which one is worse? My loaded gun sitting in my house is equivalent to my car parked in my garage. It's sitting there not a harm to anyone so I dont understand the question. So I guess someone breaking in my home is worse however if I wasn't home I'd have my gun with me most likely. Now question for you..what are the chances you go to church or the spa and someone starts shooting at your family? Well it happens locally and what's worse to me is having the ability to save my family and your family but deciding not to be armed.
2:28 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I have been robbed 3 times now in N. Ozaukee co. police did absolutely nothing, even after I found out who did 2 of the 3 robberies, 2 of which were at night while I was home. I also "thwarted" 2 more attempts by being awoken and "brandishing" my sidearm and they ran. The police knew every one of them but had bigger fish to fry I guess as NONE of them were prosecuted. The next time I hope all I have to do is "brandish" it, time will tell.
Johnny Blade
1:00 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Lyle .. Do you have a fire extinguisher or fire detectors .. You know the chances are so very small your place will catch fire .. I wouldn't have any if i were you
Mike Itzenhuiser
9:16 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Have recent events made it more likely for me to own a gun? Absolutely not. I've owned guns my entire life. Recent events have only made it necessary to get my concealed carry permit. Now I don't leave my house without packing heat.
9:44 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
And thank your lucky stars that you are protected from lawsuit if you happen to shoot someone by accident while protecting yourself or others.
Charlie DeSando
9:39 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
To the "Patriot" - let me say - If you read my comment, we don't disagree about the Constitutional right to own guns. I just never had the desire to own one and never will. We just don't need ordinary citizens armed with assault rifles and with high capacity magazines in them.
11:33 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
What, please is 'twarting'? I never twarted anyone in my life and I never intend to.
Lyle Ruble
9:41 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The real danger to society is extremism. The more extreme the perception, the more selective and limited are the choices made. To prepare for government tyranny based on the view that the government is going to become a dictatorship or some other oligarchical structure is faulty as long as we have our capability of exercising our right to freely elect our representatives. The best defense against tyranny is not everyone owning a firearm, but everyone voting. As long as we maintain an orderly society, civil unrest doesn't present a significant threat to the average citizen since the government has sufficient resources to respond and return order. However, when we have individuals or groups of individuals who are prepared to respond to civil unrest with force before the government can intervene, it creates conditions that will easily escalate into wider unrest and further violence. It becomes a sad commentary when reasonable people feel they must arm themselves. Now our society is engaged in a private arms race all based on faulty assumptions. Mantras such as "the only way you'll get my gun is from my cold dead hands", creates conditions where reasonable people can't come together for compromise solutions. the attitude and actions taken by the extremists on the political right is, in fact, making general society less safe rather than safer.
9:56 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lyle you are an admitted progressive socialist, sorry those are not the principles this Country was founded upon.
12:51 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The best defense against tyranny is not bearing arms, but instead voting? Remember, Adolph Hitler was elected.
Lyle Ruble
2:04 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@3393....Adolf Hitler was elected using false premises and fear, just like what the political right radicals adhere to. Informed voting is still the best weapon against tyranny.
10:34 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Lyle- Obama destroyed his enemy with false premises, offered free stuff to voters, he's an extreme left radical and we are in a soft tyranny. My point still stands.
Conspiracy T
9:59 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting http://tiny.cc/l4a3pw
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
No wonder the sheep like mentality is pervading everyone's fragile minds, you hear about the shooters but never the people that stop them.
The only thing that stops bad guys with guns are good guys/gals with them. Until the media treats all news the same we will forever be locked in a Liberal cesspool.
10:03 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Ditto my man!!! A LIBERAL CESSPOOL incapable of thinking for themselves!!!!
10:10 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@ Charlie-An off duty cop. We all know 9 out of 10 times the police are there to clean up and figure out what happened. There are numerous cases of individuals using their weaponds to stop or prevent a threat. Happened in oregon with that mall shooter, but again thats not reported
John Wilson
11:47 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Conspiracy T -
Yes, and now she is getting a medal, just for doing her duty as a police officer.
By the way, I have received over 20-emails on this story since the incident, all from REAL MEN...
6:25 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
John- So you don't think what she did was heroic? Risked her life and moved towards the threat while everyone else ran? She could've also ran. She wasn't required to do anything. So if police officers shouldn't be rewarded for doing heroic acts because its just expected, then every police officer walking down the street should be praised for being a police officer because its just implied they will doing similar acts. I actually do think police officers are heros but when someone can save lives like that...it isn't just a normal duty. If it was anyone including you could and would be a police officer.
John Wilson
6:48 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Str8shooter -
She did her job; a police officer, on-duty or off-duty really has the same obligation, at least all the ones I know and respect. Give her a medal and whatever you like, she did do her job, and she did do it well.
The word HERO has been so overused, it has become virtually meaningless.
I would have done the same thing she did, without much thought at all, only difference is, I would have drifted off into the sunset and not allowed myself to be identified or accepted medal...
You don't need to be a police office to be a good citizen...
1:30 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
The word HERO being overused has nothing to do with this scenario. She ran towards an armed murderer intent to kill more people and saved lives. SHE IS A HERO. And there is absolutely no obligation to do that off duty or even on duty. Police are trained NOT to run toward an active shooter alone. They are trained to get a small group in a "diamond" formation and then move toward the threat. She broke training and did what she felt she needed to do to save lives just as I believe almost all police officers would do. HERO
John Wilson
2:47 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Str8shooter -
Firefighters are trained to run away from fires, whether on duty or off duty too. (?) Doing what you are trained to do and what you are as a human being is not in any sense HEROIC. IF I put your paw on a hot stove burner, and you pulled your paw away, yes, by your definition, you would be a HERO.
In America, these days, you are a HERO if you can breathe and have a heartbeat… even if you are brain dead and in a coma… which accurately describes the case of almost all conservatives…
3:14 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
John - If you were anyone else I would be offended how you belittle others, mis state facts, give half truths, don't give people credit when credit is due, and can not stay focused on the topic. However with you it's expected as are your nonsense answers. I am not a firefighter but am familiar with their practices and know they do not run away from fires. They do not always go into a burning building but they still treat the fire with water and control it by other means. You clearly don't know police tactics and training when it comes to active shooters. And let me put this in simple terms for you. A human instinct when being shot at is to run away so I would say not heroic. The human instinct when your hand is on a hot oven is to move your hand. Also not heroic. Neither are trained but both are instinctive. So the complete opposite of what you said. And to compare going against training by attacking an active shooter to ones hand on a hot stove??? All I can say is come on John. Don't use facts when you're not familiar with them and don't give complete inaccurate examples as comparisons. I hate to ask but I would like to know your example of a hero. And no it can't be you with a walker and cape.
John Wilson
3:58 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Str8shooter –
Both firefighters and police officers are trained to "overcome their instincts" and go toward the fire and go after the criminal or shooter with a gun. Therefore, there is nothing unusual or heroic about what the female police officer did. As I stated earlier on this blog, she did her job and did it well. Thank her, thank her supervisors for providing her with great training and support, and let us all move on. There is no need to carve another face in Mt Rushmore! [The comment I made about firefighters was sarcasm, which seems to have just flew over you.]
Audi Murphy would be one person whom I would actually call a hero.
10:04 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The perfect world where the Government takes care of us. That is some funny stuff there. This agenda is bigger than Obummer or Biden. Wake up people!!
Charlie DeSando
10:04 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The country founded on principles such as this - "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Things change over time. Rights can be limited, such as the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is not absolute, and neither is the 2nd amendment. There can be limits placed, as put forth in the Constitution.
10:07 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Its okay Charlie. You must enjoy having your head neck deep in the sand. If your comfortable there then stay there but Dont Tread On me or my rights just because u disagree
Real Patriot
10:06 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
No. I live in Greendale with an excellent police force. I'm not paranoid thinking people will break in. I have what I need a dog that'll attack.
10:16 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
To paraphrase the original question: do recent events make it more likely for you to purchase/own a gun?
Not "do you want to YELL at people who disagree with you?" Or, "what 100% facts do you have about guns, gun deaths, gun accidents, gun ownership.....?" Or, "can you make demeaning comments to those who may have
pro/anti/neutral beliefs about guns?"
My answer to the posed question--no, the recent events do not make it more likely for me to own a gun.
Enjoy your Sunday.
Charlie DeSando
10:25 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
To the "Patriot" - Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them wrong. Just means we have different opinions, as protected by the 1st Amendment. There is a reason it is the 1st Amendment.
Again let me say - If you read my comment, we don't disagree about the Constitutional right to own guns. I just never had the desire to own one and never will. We just don't need ordinary citizens armed with assault rifles and with high capacity magazines in them.
11:17 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I can't think of one mass shooting involving an assault rifle because assault rifles are "fully automatic" while the civilian model of AR15's/M4's are only semi auto which is the same as most handguns and many other shotguns and rifles. It's a civilian model because it is appropriate for civilians. It shoots almost the same bullet a squirrel hunting rifle does just in a gun that looks differently. The only difference is the larger magazine and if there was any correlation to the magazine size and killings then I would be ok with banning them but there isn't. And again for those that are uninformed, REAL fully automatic assault rifles are legal for paying an extra fee. So why would anyone not want to ban real assault rifles before these rifles that people perceive as assault rifles???
11:22 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Taking advantage of the layman's confusion over 'assault' and 'semi-automatic' weapons does not really advance the discussion. We just get bogged down in semantics.
Could you explain to me why a target shooter or a sportsman needs a semi-automatic weapon with a huge magazine in the first place?
11:59 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
It's not semantics at all. People want to ban AR15's. Well AR15's aren't anything more than basically a squirrel hunting gun that looks different. So if the attack is on semi auto firearms then that is going to encompass so much more than AR15's because they are the same. As I stated I will at least listen to the argument over magazine capacity size but in order for me to support that there would need to be some evidence capacity has any bearing on killings and being a gun can be reloaded within 1 sec I don't believe the mag size would be beneficial at all. Reasons to keep 30 capacity... Nothing negative comes from it, target shooters prefer not reloading as often, and more likely to save lives in self defense. Police don't take on troops of armed suspects yet they have 30 capacity mags because a shoot out with one person has proven to be dozens and dozens of rounds. With your thinking police should have even less than an average citizen because there are many police officers but only one home owner. There is just nothing positive I see from reducing mag size.
12:06 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Randy since I answer your question about mag capacity can you answer mine since no one else has. Why is everyone making a big deal about the semi auto civilian AR15 when a civilian can pay for the stamp and get a fully auto military style rifle? If we ban civilian models then civilians might just go get a "more lethal" firearm. No one seems to have a problem with that.
10:40 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Given that Adam Lanza's mother and even a trained police officer, Jennifer Sebena were shot with their own guns, no. There's an equal chance of your own gun being used against you rather than providing protection.
I'm not against gun ownership at all, but guns aren't all what they're cracked up to be.
11:07 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Randy as I stated ANYONE can be ambushed or or randomly killed...even the most highly trained military members. I'm sure you just like Karen did not mean it in a disrespectful manner but it at least bothers me that people use half of the facts about a hero falling as basis for their argument. I have a feeling if you counted all the times police or military saved themself or other people with guns it would be astoundingly more than being killed by guns. I have no problem with people who are going to own guns having to be proficient with them but just because one person is killed does not mean thousands more aren't saved with guns.
11:11 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
How many home invaders or muggers send an engraved announcement ahead of time? Many of these incidents are ambushes or surprise attacks.
Lex Parsimoniae
1:53 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Many are, many more are not. I'd rather have, and not need..than need, and not have. The only ambush, or surprise attack, involved with a home invasion is when a SWAT team does an entry, en mass, with flash bangs. Someone breaking into your house is a: going to take a while, and make some noise getting in; and b: going to take a while (more than 10 seconds) getting to your location. At that point in time, I'd rather have a defensive position with a gun in my hand, than a phone. There are plenty of 911 calls online for you to find out how that ends, often it's not pretty.
Bottom Line
11:06 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The current events haven't changed my mind about gun ownership.
I do wish we would focus on criminality and the mentally unstable, instead of discussing limitations for the law abiding. I haven't read many posts, blogs, or articles, that address the real issues.
People that choose not to own guns, and people that want complete arsenals are generally not causing these events that occur. Mass shootings, and day to day shootings are happening because we have people in our free society that should be institutionalized, or jailed.
Keith Best
11:11 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Blaming the guns is like blaming the fork and spoon for making Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell fat Think about that.
Afterall, spoons and forks don't make people fat, people make people fat.
11:17 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Keith Best -- I'm getting tired of that cliche. Yes, it takes a person to shoot a gun, just as it takes a person to raise a fork to their mouth. But a semi-automatic with a large magazine in the hands of someone whose mental health has deteriorated is a lot like a can of formerly wholesome peas that's full of corn syrup for taste and preservation and now has three times the caloric content.
We're making it easier for people to get fat. We're making it easier for a single deranged person to kill large numbers of other people.
Steve ®
12:30 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Exactly Randy. We need to lock up and put down anyone with a mental illness. Mass school shootings are common place now, they happen weekly. We need to put down these nut jobs before they enter gun free zones and blast away my children.
3:56 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Of course I said nothing of the kind. I think you should take a course in reading comprehension. How about if we made it just a little more difficult to kill so many people in so little time? Is that such a horrible imposition on the true sportsman?
Michael Pyter
11:27 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
What makes any anti-gun propenent believe that if the government is successful taking away or severely hampering one Constitutional right, that they will stop there? Drunken drivers kill far more people than people using AR15's, what do you propose to stop them? Does anyone realy believe that in a country that "maybe" stops 10% of the illegal drugs smuggled into this country that the government will keep illegal guns from being smuggled...please. Is it fair then that the millions of responsible gun owners should be punished for the actions of a crazed few and in light of the fact that the criminals will still be able to buy assault weapons on the black market? The world is growing more violent, buy and learn how to properly use a gun. It is our right and responsibility to do so. The police can only do so much and so fast. Do proponents believe for one second that mass murderers that wish to kill won't do so because that can't get an AR15? To believe that you would have to be an idiot.
12:00 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The term "assault weapon" is very misunderstood by people who are not familiar with guns. An AR-15 certainly looks menacing. In reality, it is a semi-auto fire rifle with a fairly small caliber bullet. I for one think that the government should restrict it to a maximum of 10. Of course it won't deter someone hell bend on murder, but it makes it just a little harder to cause mass casualties. Nobody who hunts uses a 30 round magazine. To truly make a difference, I believe you have to take some discretion out of judges hands. There has to be harsh mandatory minimum sentences for people who commit crimes with guns. I'm not talking about just murder. I mean ALL crimes committed while armed with a firearm.
12:18 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Exrepub...although I'm not an EXrepublican I mostly agree with what you said. I definitely agree about much stricter sentencing for violent crimes and crimes involving guns. I am OPEN to the idea of reducing mag capacity but I would need to see some correlation between mag size and number of killings. I see what you're saying about at least making it harder but in my opinion the second it would take to reload isn't enough benefit compared to the detriment of taking it away from responsible gun owners. But like I said I'm open to the idea. Thanks for the reasonable post!
1:40 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I agree with Str8shooter... it bugs me that in the wake of the terrible Sandy Hook tragedy the talk is gun control instead of better school protection. Laws cannot guarrantee something that unthinkable cannot happen again... schools need more ways to be defensive and offensive should they find themselves in a situation where they are under an attack. A tornado or a fire is pretty unlikely to happen in a school to the extent of many deaths, but we plan for the unlikely event those things happen.... being under attack by sick individuals should also be something planned for in terms of planning and tools to help those in the situation. I do not love the idea of next taxes much, if ever... but rather than limiting guns as a non-solution to a real problem, why not add some costs to the guns and ammo and funnel that into the schools for protection mechanisms. For one, special doors on classrooms that can be locked and bullet proof to keep and intruder out would be good... and then I actually think giving the school some offensive weapons of some sort makes sense. Maybe tear gas, maybe tasers and maybe even a gun or two available to key staff. To most that sounds ridiculous, but it could be controlled in various ways... such as biometric locking gun cabinets, a cabinet that would require two people to open it, and alarms on any system that, if opened, would alert the school and authorities. More can be done than gun control to actually offer real protection.
Daniel S.
1:42 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Harsh minimum sentence: bye bye, adios, ciao, sayonara, see ya in the next life, etc; yep, that might actually put Fear in the right place. Currently the Fear is: Free Room & Board; better than many hard working citizens can afford.
2:00 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Daniel S- you and I agree on needing much harsher penalties but for different reasons. I honestly don't feel many people today are concerned about doing jail time but at least with harsher penalties they will be locked up and unable to commit another crime.
12:11 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Recent events have caused my husband and I to consider purchasing a gun. We have taken the conceal/carry course and will also take related training courses before making a final decision...education is key here...
I refuse to be a victim and I will protect my family. The last few shooting events have been too close to home.
Steve ®
12:26 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I plan on increasing my arsenal just to spite the blue fisters, liberals, Obama and to support this crap Obama economy.
~ sincerely
the constitution
12:53 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Steve now you got me thinking outside the box...Maybe this is a master plan by Obama to finally spur the economy. You're playing right into his plan! ha
Steve ®
1:39 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Hummm you may be on to something. But whatever works so far he has been an absolute failure on this subject. Guns work, solar panels do not.
John Wilson
11:57 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Steve ® -
I plan on being a belligerent child, serving my Lord and Master, the almighty NRA; they tell me to be frightened and so I am; I am going to go out and buy every firearm I possibly can so I can make the NRA rich beyond all belief...
John Wilson
11:59 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Str8shooter -
People like you should definitely stay "inside" the BOX or Bellevue.
Steve ®
1:46 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
John. You are confused on how the NRA receives financing.
Using fear to pass gun control is a liberal birthright.
12:27 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
As a Christian I take seriously the Commandment, "Thou shall not murder." How would I live with myself knowing I had taken someone's life for a pathetic reason such as protecting a few dollars in my house or an easily-replaced item such as a tv or car.
That being said, I also don't live like a fool. When I drive through my neighborhood I see large hdtvs through open windows and shake my head. It's like putting out a welcome mat for thieves.
And the times my life has been threatened/endangered, having a gun in hand would have escalated each situations to irretrievable levels. One never knows what/if the other(s) are carrying until one's own weapon is displayed, or what the reaction could be if a gun is pulled.
I would personally rather die than live as they did in the Old West. That sort of primitive savagery...no thank you.
1:00 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Bren I can respect that. It's definitely not for everyone and I do agree deadly force should be used to protect people not property. Everyone has their own beliefs and for me I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I could save someone else and did nothing about it.
Daniel S.
1:37 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
For some, the fact that you have a home would be enough, even if they cannot see inside; or that you have an apartment to go into, a new vehicle or . . . . . the only welcome mat a thief requires is the: you have, I don't and I want mat.
4:23 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Str8shooter, no matter how much time I could spend at the shooting range, I would not logically expect to win in an armed shoot-out with an individual accustomed to living a violent lifestyle and/or spending a great deal of time planning a murder spree. I've had a few difficult situations to deal with in my life, some of which involved other individuals. In each case, calm and wit carried the day. Thank God there weren't fools, like the restaurant employee who accidentally shot my uncle, a counter customer, dead during an attempted hold-up, to turn volatile situations into fatal ones.
KHD, if folks wish to keep the drapes open so that the interiors are clearly viewed from the street it's their choice, albeit a foolish one. A "peeping tom" is one who slinks up to windows and tries to peer through curtains and shades. Poor vocabulary, in my circle, is particularly disliked. Watch it! ; )
Daniel S., I can't argue about that. But again, I can't justify killing someone over material goods. Over the years, in several countries, I've suffered hotel room, car, and apartment break-ins. Ordinarily burglars are cowards who only become violent when cornered. My advice is to keep your mobile phone with you at all times and if something suspicious is seen or heard, call the police. Don't be like a former colleague of mine who got knifed trying to corner a burglar.
Rees Roberts
12:32 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Even if you have already made up your mind please consider this FACT:
In the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales), with a population of 62 million, there were 18 gun homicides in 2009. In the United States, with a population of 309 million, in 2009 there were 9,146 gun homicides. The United States has almost 5 times the population of the United Kingdom. BUT, there were 508 times the number of gun homicides in the United States compared to the United Kingdom.
What's the difference? Strict gun laws in the United Kingdom. So, how do you argue with that? Please do some real reasoning if you reply because these FACTS are pretty damning to our country.
United States:
Steve ®
12:44 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Crime has skyrocketed in the UK and Australia after their gun bans. No competition is good for business. The cops carry firearms in the UK again, they were sick of gettin killed by the bad guys.
Rees Roberts
12:48 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Please share with us your source for that irresponsible comment. Thank you.
1:03 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Rees, what are the strict gun laws? Are they prohibiting gun ownership or are they stricter penalties. Because I'm all for stricter penalties. But one gun is just as deadly as another so I don't believe in just limiting types of guns.
Rees Roberts
1:26 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Did you look at the links? The info was right there. But for all the others who didn't look at the links here is the info you requested.
In England & Wales, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register. Also, a unique identifying mark on each firearm is required by law. In addition, state authorities carry out recognized arms tracing and tracking procedures.
In Northern Ireland, civilians are not allowed to possess machine guns. Private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited. Only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition. Applicants for a gun owner's license is required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm. An applicant for a firearm license must pass background checks which consider various records. Third party character references for each gun licence applicant are required.
In Scotland, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register. A unique identifying mark on each firearm is required by law. State authorities carry out recognised arms tracing and tracking procedures. It is state policy to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market.
Steve ®
1:30 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lol. Irresponsible? Why because it doesn't fits hat your liberal media tells you what to think? Is your Google machine broken....
Get your google machine working. See how crime has increased. See how criminals are more afraid of a home owner having personal protection rather than the police. See how when help is needed in seconds the police are minutes away.
The USA has a major problem with urban inner city black murders . It is vastly un proportional to the rest of the world.
Daniel S.
1:33 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
There is much more to the equation than just population.
Rees Roberts
1:45 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Would you agree that my comment was about "Gun Homicides"? And would you agree your comment was about "Gun Crime"? Apples and Oranges. Totally different. I thought we are trying to discuss a policy to reduce, in a meaningful way, homicides by use of guns. I, in no way, was discussing gun crime. Please stay on topic. Thank you. Can we at least agree with that the United Kingdom is doing a better job with gun homicides?
Daniel S.
Of course there is more to it than population. But the population of the United Kingdom is getting more diverse just like the United States is too. So, it does at least show the "degree" how far apart we are between the two countries. Having 500 times more gun homicides in the United States is just plain terrible. We should at least agree with that.
Can we not agree on basic stuff like that?
1:50 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I don't think most of those are unreasonable because many of those things are already being done here. Backgrounds are done, only some states require guns be registered which I have no problem with, guns are already required to have serial numbers, machine guns are illegal without a stamp, and ATF does tracking of some transactions. The only one I have a problem with is having to show a reason to own a gun. It's our 2nd amendment right and because criminals frequently steal guns from responsible gun owners. So as long as someone can own a gun, criminals will get them also. And since criminals will get them that's reason enough for me to own one. So since most of those things are already being done how will it reduce these shootings?
Daniel S.
1:54 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Often times the comparison is brought up to the number of deaths in vehicles. To create a ocean of difference, they break the vehicle related deaths down to deaths per millions of miles driven. How about if we break the firearm murders down to millions of bullets sold or fired? I imagine it would be a very low number . . . .
Rees Roberts
2:05 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Have you forgotten about the secondary market in the United States? There are no back ground checks at gun shows. Until this loophole is closed we will continue to have a problem. As for the UK requirement that you need a reason to own a gun, yes..... we have the 2nd amendment. I know this has been batted back and forth forever but I have some reasonable doubt that a couple hundred years ago they crafted the 2nd amendment only to assure we had a militia. I doubt they envisioned that every day joe blow would have his own gun to protect himself from others. But the law persists and with it we now have a society gone a muck with gun homicides. That's my opinion. Please respect that. The media has done such a wonderful job at picking the news that has the most emotional impact that now everyone feels we need to protect each other FROM each other. This is insane. We are supposed to be the "UNITED States of America". We are moving so far away from that. We are now the FEARFUL States of America". We have lost trust in everything. Our elected officials aren't helping either. It's nuts.
Steve ®
2:21 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Please link to where the shooter went to a gun show to obtain the weapons. K thanks.
2:31 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Ress what do you mean that's your opinion and respect it? We're having a very friends discussion. You give your opinion and then I give mine. That's how these go. And per my response I said I'm fine with all those things. Backgrounds are fine. I agree there shouldn't be a loophole however for those states that require guns be registered the gun sale would be recorded at time it gets registered. I would agree the background before hand would be more beneficial. I also gave another for owning guns and not just the 2nd amendment...the fact that criminals and mentally ill people already have guns is a pretty good reason! And do you honestly think the media is showing why people need guns to protect themselves?! Story after story about these shootings and that there should be more gun restrictions. Instead of all the stories about police and citizens stopping before these incidents occur or stopping the in progress shootings. Most of these shooting only stop once the police or an armed citizen show up. Bad guy gets shot or more commonly commits suicide because bad guy knows people are ready to fight back. My question or statement was how would any of those restrictions from Europe stop these shooting here? Who would not have gotten a gun here to commit the shooting?
Daniel S.
2:35 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
There are background checks done at Gun Shows, just not at all vendors; FFL vendors do background checks. Background checks required by all gun sales and transfers will most likely be the GIVE to appease the anti-gun crowd. It is the most logical of all the thoughts of control being tossed around. Magazine capacity and weapon type truly make no difference to would be murderers; they will execute their plan one way or another.
vocal local 1
3:35 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Rees, your data is full of holes. What it doesn't tell you is the total number of homicides committed only those committed with a gun. I've read that the number of stabbings increased considerably. To answer your question on how do we argue your point of view is by providing factual data that contradicts your claim which we can. Your conclusion is erroneous and incorrect. Sorry hit the books. Below is sample data note years of data and presentation.
In 2007–8, there were 114 homicide victims in Scotland,[6] a slight decrease on the previous year. In the third quarter of 2009, there were a little over 17,000 full time equivalent serving police officers. There were around 375,000 crimes in 2008–9, a fall of 2% on the previous year. These included around 12,500 non-sexual violent acts, 168,000 crimes of dishonesty (housebreaking, theft and shoplifting are included in this category) and 110,000 acts of fire-raising and vandalism.
2008–9 According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales. There were about 50,000 sexual offences during the same period, just under 1 per thousand. Other areas of crime included robbery (80,000; equivalent to around 1.5 crimes/per thousand), burglary (285,000; 5 per thousand) and vehicle theft (150,000; 3 per thousand).
2008–9 Between April 2008 and 2009, there were just over 110,000 crimes in Ireland
Rees Roberts
4:32 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
vocal local 1 recently said:
"Rees, your data is full of holes. What it doesn't tell you is the total number of homicides committed only those committed with a gun."
BUT IT DOES. PLEASE READ THE LINK. It says exactly what you say it doesn't. I will quote the link:
"Number of Gun Homicides
In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total
2009: 18"
What about that statement don't you understand? Seriously!
The rest of your comments again are talking points of apples vs oranges. We are talking about gun homicides not anything else. Not using knives or any other types of devices. I will stipulate that you can commit a homicide with any number of other devices but in this country guns are the device of choice. Stop trying to confuse the issue. Thank you.
The Anti-Alinsky
4:38 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
There may have been only 18 GUN murders in the UK in 2009 (or 28 or 39 depending on the source), but still some 626 TOTAL homicides.
Which just proves the point, if someone wants to kill you they will find the most convenient means.
The Anti-Alinsky
4:39 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
By the way, 2009 was a 20 year low in gun murders. Atta way to pick the data that best "proves" your point.
Steve ®
8:38 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I guess the gun show comment was just a distraction. One of many.
Lyle Ruble
12:32 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
One has to ask why did the U.S. Military go from the standard NATO 7.62 mm to the 5.56 mm round? It comes down to simple weight and how much ammunition the average soldier had to carry. When Gene Stoner developed the AR-15, he was addressing an issue that had plagued the military for quite some time; the need for a light weight, high rate of fire with a max effective range of around 300 meters. When the AR-15 was first tested in combat in Vietnam, it was called the Mattel 15 by the troops.
The .223 magnum round became the primary round because of its muzzle velocity and lethality up to 300 meters. The original .223 round adopted by the U.S. Military was originally rejected by NATO because it was deemed inhumane. The original round, upon making contact, not only tumbled, but also splintered. They cut the powder charge and eliminated the splintering. That lead to the current NATO round of 5.56 x 45. To make the claim that the AR-15 is nothing more than a squirrel gun is misleading and disingenuous. It was designed to kill human beings. If you hit a squirrel or rabbit with a .223 round shot from an AR-15 weapon, there wouldn't be much left to pick up, let alone eat. The same problem occurs with larger game such as deer. The round hits with such kinetic energy it destroys much of the surrounding area. To me a squirrel or rabbit rifle is a .222 short or long that strikes the target with much less force. (continued)
Lyle Ruble
12:52 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
(continued) People want to differentiate between assault weapons based on the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic. From a practical standpoint, an AR-15's rate of fire in semi-automatic is greater than that of a WW II BAR, which is fully automatic. This is precisely why high capacity magazines give the weapon the capability of rates of fire equal to or greater than fully automatic weapons. Due to the lighter weight of the AR-15 and ammunition, large capacity magazines do not put any limitation on the ability to fire the weapon in long bursts of fire. It will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and it has such a quick action that it might as well be considered automatic in operation compared to older fully automatic rifles. Since the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting and represents overkill for self protection, it is clearly designed as an offensive weapon, thus earning a practical title of Assault.
Long rifles for hunting may have a more powerful round, but are designed for distance and accuracy. They don't have nearly the rate of fire and only hold a limited number of rounds. My three favorite hunting rifles are the 1903 Springfield, the British Enfield .308 and the Mauser 98. These are the weapons of choice for the serious hunter; all bolt action and extremely accurate out to 900 meters. Used with a round designed for hunting, it is humane and doesn't destroy the meat, especially if one does like I do and only take head or neck shots. (continued)
Lyle Ruble
12:52 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
(continued) There are some of us who are on the left that aren't totally ignorant of firearms and ammunition and will counter the misinformation spewed by the gun extremists.
1:15 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lyle parts of that is accurate and I want to stress PARTS. A .223 is closer to a squirrel rifle than all of the big game hunting guns such as .30 .30, 30-06, 12ga, 20ga, etc which all have MUCH more power. The .223 is a fast traveling bullet and is faster than a .22 but is basically a glorified .22. Of course a .223 is capable of killing as all bullets are. That's their purpose. A .223 used to be illegal for deer hunting in Wi yet certain handguns were legal because the .223 was deemed inhumane due to the lack of killing power to deer yet the handguns were legal. So .223 is a fast and penetrating bullet but of a very small caliber. Police and military use much larger caliber for sniper rounds because the .223 is not capable like the .308 and larger rounds are.
1:33 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lyle, slightly off topic but in response to you taking head and neck shots on deer...many hunter safety manuals would actually suggest and say the front shoulder area is more humane than the neck and maybe even the head. If you are certain of a direct hit to the head that's great but its such a small target. The heart and lung area is a much larger target of vitals to hit especially with sudden movements of deer which will still often kill within seconds. Less likely to miss your small target areas and just wound. Just stating instructions from the WI DNR hunter safety manual taught to new hunters.
1:36 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
And lets just disregard some of the truths about .223(AR15) and assume Lyle is correct on how deadly .223 is. If criminals and mentally ill people who shouldn't have the guns to begin with already have them, why in the world would other law abiding citizens and I want to give ours up? If that's the case only dangerous people have them.
Lyle Ruble
2:46 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Str8shooter...I think there isn't any disagreement that a .223 round is unsuitable for hunting most game. My pointing this out was done to illustrate that people who claim to use it for hunting are promoting misinformation. It is a weapon designed to kill people only. In all truth, I am less concerned about AR-15s and more concerned about concealable weapons such as powerful handguns. To my knowledge, it is handguns, in most cases, that are used in the commission of crimes and crimes of passion, much more than assault style rifles. I don't own handguns and for home protection a shotgun loaded with buck shot is more than sufficient to get the job done. People really need to examine the reasons why they own weapons against the probability of using them.
FYI, I prefer head and neck shots because if I miss, it is less likely that I will wound the animal and make it suffer. My best shot was, using iron sights only, a Springfield 1903 at 600 yards, right below and behind the left ear. After I came back from Vietnam, I gave up on hunting altogether preferring to hunt with a camera instead. I don't deny a person's right to hunt or own firearms, but I do fear the armed ideologue who feels the only solution is through armed aggression. It is much to easy to misread a situation resulting in irreparable harm.
3:37 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Lyle BUt we do disagree why a .223 is unsuitable. A couple of us say it doesnt cause enough damage but you say it causes too much. I don't know the statistics as to what type of gun is used more in the mass shootings but I'd agree handguns are used more in the violent crimes such as armed robbery because bad guys can conceal them easier. So if bad guys are out on the streets with handguns how do the good guys protect themself unless they can also carry a handgun which they can conceal? I would hope most people who carry a concealed weapon know there are some scenarios which are not appropriate to draw and fire your weapon such as more bad guys than good guys, they have more fire power, no cover, your family is with you in some instances but we cant take them away just because someone may use it in an unideal scenario. If thats the case youo might as well take away cars, alcohol, and cellphones. In reality those things should go first because you don't have a constitutional right to any of those except a gun. Also I would agree a shotgun is a good option for home defense but if you are truely prepared you need a flashlight attached to your weapon. Many shotguns do not allow that. Long guns are not impossible but more difficult to do room clearing if you need to get to your family in another room in your house. So different guns are better for different applications
12:47 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lyle, when your done with this epistle, please explain our government buying hundreds of thousands of bullets, hollow point bullets, bullets that are illegal in any war time situation because of their destructive nature, and giving them ONLY to State side government agencies who in no point in history have been nor seen a need to be armed. Thank you in advance.
Lyle Ruble
1:44 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Tony...I don't know exactly what you are implying. If you are looking for some reason that the government is going to be begin forceful enforcement of some kind, I don't know. The use of a hollow point is designed to provide maximum stopping power without creating too much collateral damage. I had also read the same articles and I didn't see anything that was particularly alarming. I tend not to give much credence to conspiracies.
2:05 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@ Lyle, this is fact, hundreds of articles of this fact written by non-conspiracy types. The gov has even responded with total B.S. about using these man killing rounds at the range...why purchase bullets twice as expensive as FMJ's to use at range? Granted, they dont care as it is your and my money.....and you and I they plan to use them against, or - again, why arm desk jockies, irs agents and others having absolutely nothing to do with military, hunting, law enforcement or protective services with hollow point filled military a.k.a. assault style sidearms while telling me and you we cant have them?
12:57 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Actually that's not true. A 223 round is a very fast but small round that wouldn't do a lot of damage to a deer. That's why people don't use that caliber to hunt deer. The 223 round is mostly used to hunt animals like coyotes. However you are correct that it was designed for the AR/M-16 platform, which is a military weapon.
1:30 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I have been contemplating getting a gun for a while... recent events have taken that contemplation into shopping. I havent purchased yet because there is an overwhelming amount of gun options out there and I havent determined what I think is best. I also will not purchase until I get a very safe and secure way to store the gun and ammo. My viewpoint on the gun thing is I would rather not be in a situation where having a gun could have made a positive difference but I didnt have one. I do not plan to take it with me everywhere... but to have it around in the event where something is going on to dictate having one. So it would not be a solution for everything... but I will consider getting a conceal and carry permit as well.
Lyle Ruble
3:03 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@JW...The best firearm for home protection is a semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. At close range you don't miss. It can be easily at hand and stored loaded on an empty chamber. A woman or large adolescent child can also easily handle it. The only downside is that they are usually heavier and have a strong recoil or kick.
3:44 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Shotgun is a good option but not ideal in all situations, Most shotguns do not allow lights to be affixed to them and anyone with any type of training knows how ineffective you are in the dark without a light. Long guns are not impossible to utilize for this but are more difficult to do room clearing if you need to get to your family in another room. Shotguns also typically hold about 5 shells. Trained officers will fire over a dozen times at a supect during stress and still not hit the suspect. Dont exclude all other firearms for different scenarios especially if you dont have the correct equipment and training with that shotgun for self defense.
Lyle Ruble
4:29 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Str8shooter....No one should be shooting into the dark and turning the lights on before firing only makes sense. If a perpetrator is going to fire on the defender, the attached light is going to be an easy target. However, over the last century and a half, the shotgun has been used as the primary home defense weapon.
4:48 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
That is true to a degree but there are tactics to avoid the light being a target, there are strobing lights, and lights can even be used to blind the intruder. Being able to see your target is the most important and the rest can be taken care of with tactics. That's why military and LE are equipped with lights in urban settings. Shotgun may have been primary past 150 years ago but equipment and tactics have come along way. No matter what type of firearm you decide to use definitely have a light.
John Wilson
12:13 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Forget all that shopping nonsense, go directly for the RPG... it is really more in line with the "mine is bigger than yours" gun crazy crowd.
2:35 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
It is scary to think that some of you angry folk own guns! Some sound paranoid and even somewhat deranged, bringing up Hitler....
Officer Sevens's death is a clear lesson in how useless it is to own a gun. Usually, it is not on hand because of the surprise. Unless you want to kill your wife, which is illegal... What if her husband did not own a gun? How about that side of the coin?
2:48 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
he would have used a knife, or a rock, or poison, or a choke hold, or a bear trap, or a tree chipper - the list is a mile long
3:40 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
No ONE can protect themself 100% against an ambush attack as the earlier comments state. Also previously stated check statistics as too how many people officers have saved with the use of a firearm compared to how many were killed by them
vocal local 1
3:52 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Comforting to infer that you don't carpediem. Keep taking your meds and please learn to read carefully so you don't miss the main point with your tunnel visionary approach. Reference to Hilter was in respect to Lyles comment about tranny and his claims about the power of the vote no matter how delusional and unstudied he is on that note. He's simply spouting opinion not fact as we all do put him in check make him support his opinion. We all know money and who one knows wins the election and support of the electorate college. I just don't understand as frequently we catch our elect repeatedly evidencing lack of integrity, not doing what they said they would and doing what they said they would not and we accept it. While we condemn those caught literally with their pants down a very normal activity historically. I just don't get it. if you do please enlighten me.
Daniel S.
2:52 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Are you referring to the recent officer shooting, by a former Marine?, that was officer Sebena. Would you suspect a Marine would murder their spouse? It did not happen because of the gun.
John Wilson
12:15 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Daniel S. -
That is correct! The man killed her with his Marine uniform!
Daniel S.
12:35 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Don't be silly JW, he didn't use the uniform to kill her; but maybe service in the Marines played a role in his mind that went unnoticed. Of course, we all know how well the Government takes care of those who serve and protect the investments of the nation . . . . . : (
6:30 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
John - Daniel S did not say he didn't kill her with a gun. He said he didn't kill her because of the gun. There were other reasons the act was committed regardless of what was used.
Brian Carlson
3:15 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
With respect, we have seen several blogs with essentially the same conversations. Perhaps one thousand or more replies on the topic of gun regulations and violence in our country is some sort of sample. My impression is, having participated in and followed this, that talking to the "do nothing" contingent is like trying to talk someone into changing aspects of their religious practice...in fact...exactly like doing so.
The proponents of stasis with regard to gun regulations are fundamentalists, by and large. They are fearful people, to go by their commentary, seriously worrying about all manners and scales of invasions on their pesons, homes and country, from burglaries to tyrannical US Governments....bent on state terrorism. The larger balance are, as well, also going by their commentaries, fantasizers. They imagine holding off the federal government with their cached supply of ammunition and assortment of weapons, while the government would, in this scenario, control all arms and munitions manufacturers and has stockpiles of weapons making theirs look puny by any comparison. The government knows them, knows where they live and what they own...assuming they legally purchased their weapons... and won't come knocking lightly should all go to hell in a hand basket. But these Paul Reveres will prevail....
Brian Carlson
3:16 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
In a word, they are long on what I can only call "faith" and short on reason as are fundamentalists of every stripe. Their minds are closed, they have their dogmas clutched in hand...and are not discussing anything...
Brian Carlson
3:16 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
As many of the pro-do nothing responders have indicated, you and I and anyone who disagrees with them on any level or to any extent is not enlightened.... We are "uniformed" as they put it. They have no respect for people who have differing views although they claim to be loyal to a form of government that protects such diverse thought.
As with any fundamentalist... You hear no nuanced thinking... It's black and white, in or out, with them or against them....a simplistic and fragile mental set that makes any hope for collaborative resolutions or even an exchange of thoughts all but impossible. I am certain now that having said this, as when one challenges any fundamentalist on their myopic, exclusionist, thinking, I will be called a fundamentalist now in return, to add to their preferred list of insults, Leftie, liberal, commie, coward, and what not.
It seems pointless perpetually speaking to people who are fused in fear, are aggressive by character, and who choose to see the world, its people and all opinion as either/or.
If these blogs reflect American sentiment... I think we can count on a lot more of the same... People choosing to perpetuate violence in thought and action.
4:05 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Brian - These discussions have been very respectful and no one has said you not anyone else can't have an opinion. But by saying that it almost implies you have an issue with the other side having an opinion. There has been a lot of incorrect information given out about certain events and firearms. When that occurs people who are informed have an opinion and can reply with facts also. I'm kind of confused where any of this is coming from. So since you didn't really say, what is your suggestion which will actually stop the shootings and not violate anyone's constitutional rights? Just a friendly discussion...
Lyle Ruble
4:08 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Brian Carlson...I am continually confounded by the approach and attitude of the pro-gun ideologues. They hide behind nom de plumes and selective articles of the constitution. The general attitude is either all or nothing at all. This is reflected in the grid-lock in Washington. What I find most disturbing is the willingness of these same individuals to take it to the level of violence and possible civil war based on selective perception of dubious and misleading information. It seems that for these individuals it isn't enough to fight unfunded wars overseas, but they want to bring the conflict here at home. I don't understand why people are so adverse to open discussion. The other amazing thing is that you and I keep popping up in their blogs and comments. Where this will eventually lead I have no idea.
4:35 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lyle-Are you in the same forum as me? You and I have had a few discussions here today and even some people on your side corrected some of your facts. I don't understand why you think because someone on the other side states an opinion that means anyone said you can't have an opinion. Ill agree a small number of people are abit extreme about challenging the govt. I however still am interested to know what could be done to prevent future shootings??? It has to be reasonable, not violate people's rights, and actually be effective.
Lyle Ruble
4:56 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Str8shooter....I have stated what I think is a reasonable solution. The control of ammunition would retain the basic constitutional rights and begin to eliminate the problems associated with the glut of firearms we now have. I think, responsible gun owners would support this approach.
5:02 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lyle do you mean control ammo as to who it's sold to or the types of ammo that is manufactured? Not sure what you're referring to. I'm not opposed to doing something with ammo but it would depend on what it is just because I don't know how effective it would be. A lot of people reload their own ammo, it can easily be smuggled like the losing war on drugs, and its already illegal for felons to possess ammo. So I guess it would just depend on what it would be.
Lyle Ruble
5:41 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Str8shooter....Along with my proposal on ammunition, which I will explain in more detail; I am proposing guns must be titled and then registered. A process very similar to the one that is used with vehicles. A firearm titled to one person holds that person responsible and if they sell the firearm, it will require a transfer of title and background check. The new owner would have to register the firearm under their name. To sell a firearm without retitling and registration would leave the old owner liable, which could carry considerable fines and possible criminal charges. A titled and registered owner that doesn't report a firearm lost or stolen, would also be subject to fines and possible criminal charges.
Ammunition could only be sold to individuals with current registration for each firearm and then a limit of ammunition sold. I also want a brass exchange program where you can only buy as many rounds as the number of pieces of brass turned in. The self loading crowd would be limited to so much powder and projectiles per month. For those that like to target shoot, they could go to a licensed range, buy range ammunition from the range and turn in any unused rounds for refund or credit. Legal firearms would be re-registered every two years and registration fees would be based on type of firearm. All revenues generated by firearm fees would be dedicated to enforcement and gun safety courses. (continued)
Daniel S.
6:18 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I believe the people who travelled here from Europe and points East of North America, came to find Freedom. If you are going to regulate ammo, make us get a license and title our weapons; then I want 50 state reciprocity, the right to carry anywhere outside of on airplanes, in jails, courtrooms and schools. By the way, how much ammo is reasonable, 10 rounds? Hello Black Market ammo, magazines and a larger population of possible criminals as you make Honest people criminals with your encroachment into the Freedom our country was built upon.
Lyle Ruble
6:52 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Str8shooter (continued)....Before any titles are issued, an extensive background check must be done. I would recommend a 30 day waiting period before the firearms can actually be transferred.
All confiscated firearms would be destroyed and not placed for sale in the aftermarket.
All semi-automatic, double action and single action firearms over 100 years old could be exempt from registration but must be titled. The same would also pertain to all single shot black powder weapons no matter the age.
By doing this, no one is restricted from owning firearms or using them for lawful purposes
Daniel S.
6:52 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Well Lyle, you mentioned the "Word" and that is one of the many reasons gun sales are through the roof: "CONFISCATION".
vocal local 1
4:01 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Michelle, are you tabulating the numbers on position in the blog? I count 23 posts in support of guns and only three against with 3 that could go either way. Looks to me like the mayor is not in step with the voice of the people with his joiner with other mayors to ban guns. You have your right and choice not to own don't tread on the rights of others. People will kill one way or another.
Brian Carlson
4:27 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Lyle... it's almost formulaic. Here is another guy asking me what I propose to STOP the violence. Lessening violence means nothing as it's all or nothing in their view. VL ends his last comment with , "people will kill one way or the other." Its a black and white world Lyle...for a huge number of folks. Why in gods name the same people probably have huge HD tvs is beyond me. A big waste of money when they cant see color at all let alone nuance. And if you aren't saluting when their flag goes up the pole.... you are the enemy.
4:54 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
So no action or solution Brian just ignore a mature discussion to criticize people with someone else? You said you're not allowed an opinion. I am asking as someone who thinks something should be done...what do you propose? I'm all ears. And if we thought it was all violence or no violence I'd propose everyone have a gun, there be no restrictions, and no police officers needed. So if you'd like to join the conversation ill discuss it with you.
The Anti-Alinsky
4:46 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Brian Carlson wrote: "...My impression is, having participated in and followed this, that talking to the "do nothing" contingent is like trying to talk someone into changing aspects of their religious practice..."
The opponents of Liberal gun control are not a "do nothing" group, we just realize that the restrictions that Liberals really want (take all guns away from everyone) does not and has never worked. What we want is real change that will be effective, and it does not have to come at the expense of trashing the second amendment.
Brian Carlson
6:10 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
AA...and your big suggestion is???? Because I hear most of the proponents insisting that we have to keep things as is... 1791 was the year God wrote the second amendment evidently.
The Anti-Alinsky
9:15 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
My solution Brian is to make a fundamental change socially. To prevent incidences like Sandy Hook (which is where this discussion started) gun owners need to secure their firearms, whether in a gun safe or gun trigger lock. This isn't something that can be legislated, it needs to be ingrained into peoples mindsets. Liberals need to accept that guns are here to stay, and accept that gun owners need to be responsible for their weapons.
To decrease inner city violence (where this discussion has migrated) will be even harder. Accept that 50 years of just throwing money at the problem has not worked. Those in poverty need to realize that they can achieve a better life, but the motivation an work needs to come from within. The government just can't give it to them, it will not last.
4:56 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I own guns and I have extensive training with the M4. AR-15's, M16's and M4's are most likely not going to be banned. If you ban those, you have to ban any semi-auto rifle. That obviously is not going to happen. The solution is to limit the mag capacity to 10. There has been the suggestion that it only takes a second to reload a new mag. I don't know anybody that can reload a new mag in one second. First you have to realize you are actually out of ammo. Then you have to find the mag release button and discard the empty mag. Then you have to access your fresh mag. That my be in a pocket, a backpack or somewhere else that you have to fish it out from. Mthenyou have to properly insert it in the magazine well, then hit the bolt catch button to chamber a round, then you have to mount the gun to be back on target. My point is that this takes time. Ask yourself the question. God forbid you were every in a mall or some place where a guy came in with an AR-15 and started shooting. Would you rather have him continually fire 30 rounds from one mag or would you prefer he have to reload two times to get those same thirty rounds off? Those are precious seconds that can be used for escape or some tpe of counter attack on the shooter. Being able to conduct a nice smooth reload is only accomplished by trained military and police who have the fresh mag immediately accessible like on a tactical vest.
Lyle Ruble
5:03 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Exrepublican....Finally, someone speaking rationally.
5:12 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Exrepub I would agree it takes training to do it in 1 second. I can do it in about 1 and I've seen people do it in less which was timed and I think is incredibly fast. I'd say the average person who shoot on a regular basis would be 1-3 seconds. Like I said I'm open to the idea of reducing mag capacity but just have doubt that couple seconds would be of any help. Most of these shooters are armed with multiple guns or multiple mags ready for a war. I don't think they are unprepared and going to take 20sec to reload. I've even considered maybe those 1-3 sec someone can intervene but I imagine people are running away and in so much distress that the 1-3 sec is not enough time to react. Seem like the only thing that ends the shootings is when armed police arrive. Just my opinion.
Daniel S.
6:01 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Who's living in Fear, the Pro-Gun or the Anti-Gun? Many Anti-Gun people claim the gun supporters are living in fear, yet you talk about having a few more seconds to escape; escape what? These events are rare, what's to be afraid of? The solution is, to put murderers that do not commit suicide, to sleep. Maybe they'll finally have some Fear within, if they see Justice being served.
Steve ®
8:45 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
When you are in a 100% gun free zone you have all the time in the world to reload. The 5-8 seconds to pop in a new magazine and keep blasting the kids is meaningless.
What sucks is when you are out of ammo and someone else is shooting back at you. Or when you don't even get to spend all your ammo because a bullet to the head is game over.
5:02 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
EX- By trained military and police. It isn't brain surgery. And now, with ALL your knowledge, you just gave some other nut bag some ideas. Daaaaaaaaa
5:31 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
St8shooter, I agree with you on some people (trained police, SWAT, military) being able to conduct a reload in three seconds. I used to be able to do that. But that was with a double 30 rd mag. All I had to do was eject the mag down 4 inches, and with the same hand insert the fresh mag. Or with a load bearing vest, access another round. All I'm trying to do is picture the recent nut cases out there that have been involved in mass shootings. I'm only guessing here that these people do not have tat level of training. If they do, the point is moot and they are going to get that 3 second reload. I still believe that limiting the the mags to 10 is better than 30. I'm totally aware that if someone is hell bent, they are going to have multiple guns. We live in a dangerous world. If we really want something done, we have to start somewhere. Limiting the mag capacity, coupled with other things such mandatory minimum sentences for ANY crime committed with a gun and somehow restricting people with mental health problems from obtaining guns is a start.
6:03 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Now here's a question. Remember Occupy Wall Street (OWS), "We are the 99%!" loose affiliation of anti-profiteerism protesters? Now, some might not have appreciated their camps, etc., but they did bring national attention to issues like wrongful home foreclosures and income disparity in this country. The police crackdowns on OWS in some cities were brutally similar to the corporate-inspired police attacks on union organizers in the bad old days of the Industrial Revolution (child labour, unsafe working conditions, pitiful wages, long work weeks, etc.). Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibpjMKMdk08 (citizen-recorded "lowlights" of Oakland police attacking a nonviolent protest-I watched the entire day courtesy of u-stream last year, absolutely sickening); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-26TERHsmA (wherein police try to disrupt and provoke reactions during peaceful protest march, protesters protected by some U.S. Marines); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTWyCY6c9AE&list=PLB0672A08C59F0EAE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwgUUbgwKBU (featuring New York's finest vs. peaceful OWS protesters).
Now, breaking stories indicate that the FBI was involved in the crackdown on U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment Rights.
Now, are the FBI, Homeland Security, etc., protecting American citizens, or Wall Street? Is this why so many citizens want to own guns?
Brian Carlson
6:13 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Sharpshtr...read my let three blogs...not blog replies...on this topic. I can't keep repeating myself indefinitely for people who come late to the party.
Daniel S.
7:06 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
If you want to solve the murder and massacre issue, you have to address the issues behind those murders. Gun Type, Magazine Capacity, Ammo Hording are not the Issue(s) that needs to be solved.
Daniel S.
7:06 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
If you want to solve the murder and massacre issue, you have to address the issues behind those murders. Gun Type, Magazine Capacity, Ammo Hording are not the Issue(s) that needs to be solved.
7:17 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
What are the issues to be solved Dan? What are your solutions?
Daniel S.
8:25 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
The issue(s) start with understanding why people murder people. Why people are willing to throw their lives away? Why have they given up hope? What has driven them toward taking the life of another without a valid cause? This is a societal issue of major proportions that we've turned the cheek to for decade upon decade. How many are really truly surprised by these instances? I for one am not and I know there are plenty of others who are not as well.
7:34 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Don't worry people they will NEVER ban guns maybe the assault rifle, which is fine with me. cause if you need 50 or 100 shots to kill a deer or another animal , then you should not even have a gun in your hands
Steve ®
8:59 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
You don't even understand what you want banned. What you want banned is the magazines.
Daniel S.
6:58 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
The 2nd amendment is not about having a hunting weapon.
Rees Roberts
8:05 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post titled:
"Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country"
Here is the link:
So, the answer to whether or not to have more guns would appear to logically lean toward having fewer....... a lot fewer guns. As I pointed out earlier in a comparison with the United Kingdom rates, we currently rate #1 for gun homicides. The chart in this link makes it totally in focus.
More guns? Ya right.
Steve ®
8:57 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Less guns = more crime. Pick your poison. And with our inner city black problems banning guns will be an all out blood bath.
Lyle Ruble
9:01 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
@Steve,,,You haven't a clue. You want to play with guns, go join the military.
Steve ®
10:18 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Another low informed voter not able to use his google machine. Ban all guns and you will see an increase in crime. Once again the libs want to replicate the failures of socialist Europe.
Lyle, I don't have to join the military to play with firearms, I have the constitution on my side. Maybe you need to read it, or at the least add a disclaimer you are low informed.
Rees Roberts
11:36 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Why was it necessary to say "I have the constitution on my side. Maybe you need to read it, or at the least add a disclaimer you are low informed."?
You do understand that kind of comment adds little to the conversation, right?
vocal local 1
12:20 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Rees, you just don't get it. None of your sources address total numbers of persons killed per population. More people are killed in other countries that have a ban on guns than here where we do not. Thus, it is illogical for our government to try to take away or limit gun rights.
John Wilson
1:17 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
vocal local 1 –
It is totally irrelevant "total numbers of persons killed per population" as we are only addressing GUN DEATHS here in AMERICA. "Total number of persons killed per population" would include strangulations, accidents, home, automobile, knife killings, cop killings, rape killings, etc. [A BASIC course in logic would be very helpful for you.]
FYI, The focus here: GUN DEATHS…
"More people are killed in other countries that have a ban on guns than here where we do not."
What is your source(s) for this incredibly inane and disingenuous statement?
Steve ®
1:50 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Ress. I can not keep explaining the most basic of things to you. Read Lyle's response. If you still don't get it well just keep living in fear that the big bad guns are coming to get you.
8:40 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
As I stated before, I do own guns for hunting and for home defense. I do not carry concealed and personally think it isn't wise to do so. However, Reese points out that there are European nations with less gun violence because of strict gun control. I heard an interesting bit of information last week in regards to WWII. When Japan was contemplating invading America, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto stated, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." He was more concerned about the armed citizens than he was about the US military. Very interesting.
Brian Carlson
10:44 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
I think Lyle and str8 were getting somewhere here. Cngrats to both for staying above the fray of fundamentalism. Gundamentalists...is my new term for gun rights proponents who can't speak or think in shades of grey...shades of adjustments to existing limitations and ordinances regarding firearms. There are many in this blog spouting dogma, the seven stock objections, repeating half baked talking points dealt with way too many times. Lyle and str8 are having a useful conversation. Listen up.
Daniel S.
12:12 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
No matter what laws you attempt to enforce upon the people, there will always be those the law does not affect. True criminals and those bent on committing mass atrocities, they will succeed in their endeavors. What is it that people want, that they murder others over? Wealth, power, revenge, these are just some of the many more common reasons. Then there are the crazies, those who seek make themselves feel complete in some warped psychological way. People who erase their entire family; you know, the person who was the great neighbor, who loved kids and went to church, was in the military etc.... Those who are standing up for the right to bear arms and the constitution, they are not this type person.
Steve ®
1:51 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
lol Brian thinks he is the judge of all things. How elitist.
11:01 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
So I have this blood deep Democrat for a sister in law, and yes she is a teacher. She started the Christmas Eve evening with a rant about banning guns. I posed this question to her and the rest of the crowd. If the situation arose that there was an active shooter in your school at the door of your room. What would you truly want to do? A: have the ability to defend the children you are charged with their safety? B: Cower in the corner of the room and watch each one of them die?
My own preferance is I want a fighting chance before I die. If I were sick I would fight to live and if I were in a bad accident I would fight to live. If I were face to face with a killer intent on killing me, I would choose to live.
All of you give it some thought. If you choose passivisim, that is your choice, but then suggect to sit down soon and write a letter to all of your loved ones saying good-bye now so they know you love them now. You can't write that letter once you are dead.
Daniel S.
12:14 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Your ideas of gun control and regulations, they will do nothing but steal more freedom and money from the people and that includes you.
8:18 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Let's just make murder illegal. Then we don't even need this debate and our problems will be solved.
Steve ®
1:52 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
I suggested this earlier. Brian and Lyle didn't feel it was necessary. The guns are the problem, not the laws we already have.
3:19 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Bravo, Darrell. Criminals don't obey laws. A waiting period had nothing to do with any recent shootings. Gun free zones had absolutely no effect on preventing them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Over 20,000 guns laws on the books now. And more from the likes of DiFi in CA will help? Liberal gobbly gook.
John Wilson
3:08 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Steve ® -
Conservatism is an STD. It was brought to America from those fine folks living on Newt's Moon Colony. It is highly resistance to any antibiotic and as of today the DMS-IV lists it as an incurable mental disorder.
9:06 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
I purchased my first gun a few months ago and after i bought it i thought to myself wow that was easy... this was at a gun store. After that i realized the background check is so fast they must only look at criminal record and well i don't think thats enough. Why only restrict felons from guns? why not restrict people wih multiple violent crimes (multiple because there are a few occasions the cops charge the wrong people in fights). Also i see no reason wisconsin shouldn't move up to federal 5 day waiting period. Another thing i would like to see is making it so all firearm transfers have to either go through a FFL(they charge for services) or through local law enforcement(paid by tax payers since its for the publics safety). Make illegally possessing a gun a criminal act with a minimum 1 month jail sentence and all other crimes a gun was used a felony with manditory 20years in prison on top of what ever punishment for the crime itself. Gun free zones won't work unless you have someone checking for firearms whenever someone enters the premises(this one is really common sense... they are coming to kill someone a sign on a wall isn't going to stop them). i do not like the idea of banning certian types of semi-automatic firearms i however have no problems with limiting capacity to around 15 rounds.
2:30 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Waiting period? What does that do? We have 2 day period in Wisconsin. Are a lot of people blown away during days 3 and 5 because 5 days is the federal standard?
I don't think felons obtain their guns from the gun store and fill out the paperwork...
3:07 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
i'm sorry did i give you the impression my ideas were going to fix everything?
Daniel S.
7:05 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
"Gun free zones won't work unless you have someone checking for firearms whenever someone enters the premises"
Gee, the person has a firearm, you're checking the people at the door; do you have any weapons, nope. Now, what is the next step? Frisking, Do we have X-ray & metal detectors? What if the person says yes? You say, sorry you can't enter here . . . so they walk away, pull out their weapon and come back blazing; worked like a charm didn't it : ( Or if they say yes, does the doorperson pull out their weapon and say: hands on the table, or up against the wall and then calls for back up.
Johnny Blade
1:14 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
The Collectivist Socialist/Commies crack me up here they are against Violence but these hypocrites are sickening .. they support government force to steal your income via income/property tax for wealth redistribution ... you don't pay the government comes with guns .. which was all illegal under the constitution until the 16th amendment in 1913 .. So these lying pieces of .... aren't agianst violence at all they are Authoritarians who want control .. What did Joe Stalin say, One man with a gun can control 100's without guns ... That is exactly what these Authoritarians want not to end school violence but to better control you so you can't fight back ... isn't that right Commie Shills
Lyle Ruble
2:12 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
@Johnny Blade...What right wing militia do you owe your allegiance to?
Johnny Blade
1:51 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Government murdered more children at WACO than were killed at Sandy Hook ... seems obvious who we should take the guns from
3:05 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
I found both situations very alarming and disturbing and sad. With Sandy Hook you had some deviant jerk who took his personal issues to the extent of killing extremely innocent kids that had absolutely nothing to do with his issues. That is one heartless individual. On the other end of the spectrum you have Waco with a bunch of gun ho idiots who just couldnt wait to force a resolution to something regardless of whether kids would be hurt in it. Both situations were pathetic... but it does go to show that dangerous or offensive actions kill... whether done via the letter of the law or not. I am for trying to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who cannot or should not have them (felons, mentally ill, or temporarily overly emotional, etc)... but... some of what goes on in the name of gun control is just so fundamentally illogical. Focusing on the details of some specific weapons or the capabilities just seem to be missing the main points and needs. I am ok with whatever waiting period is involved to get a gun... I am also ok with registrations and restrictions regarding the availability of extreme weapons... however, it has to be more than "the gun looks menacing". I dont see where an AR-15 is really more destructive than the majority of guns out there. I honestly would prefer to get an AR-15 for its versatilty and as a former Marine who used to shoot M-16s, but I dont want to risk buying something that could end up banned via the emotional anti-gun mentality.
3:09 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Someone earlier mentioned... a gun is a tool... you have it just in case. My issue with a handgun is that its going to have a limited range. If I only buy one gun, why would I want to buy one that can only do short range? The purpose of a gun as a protective device is to be able to handle unknowns. For standard home protection, it would only be used close range.... however, if something unthinkable happens... attacks from aliens that would die from gunfire, zombie apocolypse, or straight up attack and occupation by a foreign army or assault from a militant group, wouldnt you want something that would work for that as well in your one gun? And again, in any more extreme situation (and YES, I realize these events are unlikely or even unreal) you would want more rounds per clip. If the ultimate goal is to have a tool to protect your family from any major unforeseen scenarios, then a gun that can be used at ranges far and near and less need for reloading would be more appealing.
11:58 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
JW very well put. Just to add a handgun would only have an advantage if you wanted to carry concealed. Otherwise as police and military train, a handgun is only a backup weapon.
2:25 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Hahaahahahaha, JOHN WILSON, 14 cases my butt. Have another cocktail.
John Wilson
3:05 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Actually, the 14-cases are about the size of your butt...
3:54 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Steve ®
1:34 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
We need to make murder illegal. I STILL can't believe it is legal in this country!!!!!!!!!!!
John Wilson
2:21 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Steve ® -
It is only illegal for Conservative, Right-Wing Troglodytes to murder anything, as they are always too intellectually impaired to ever make a rational decision. For this sorry group of human feces, everything is a purely emotional catastrophe…
I have 14 cases of .223 ammunition that I would just love to introduce my dear Conservative Troglodytes to today... what a great NEW YEAR!
John Wilson
9:08 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
The issues(s) are not limited to a "GUN BAN" it is very much also a matter of registration, enforcement and vigorous prosecution, loopholes and both magazine size and ammunition ambiguity. We could also throw in training; however, we all know that once anyone purchases a gun, they are automatically trained. [There is a vast difference between hunting down those voracious and extremely vicious deer, and being confronted by an unexpected intruder or two.]
I have not seen anyone address – if the rational for owning guns is PROTECTION – you poor fearful puppies… any number of home security systems. IF you really want to play inane games with PROTECTING your home, there are many different levels of home security systems, that actually keep potential intruders out of your home, thus giving you a great deal of time to call the police, hit the alarm button, flip the switch so the entire home and outside is lighted, go sit on the toilet or grab your gun and put yourself in a good position for defense. Some homes actually have a "safe room." This scenario rather coincides with the multiple levels [Layers] of security one employs to protect your computer from unauthorized access, hacking, phishing, malware etc
With the money you spend purchasing an AR-15 [$800.00] or other good weapon, plus ammunition, firing range fees, training on use, CCW costs and all the driving to maintain your RAMBO life style, you could have a very robust security system.
1:28 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Really, a home security system offers protection from harm? It is a deterrant for sure, but not really protection. If anyone is rich enough to afford a safe room that would offer greater protection... but anything in terms of lights and sirens or alarms doesn't really offer all that much of a guarrantee of safety. I would agree that lights and alarms would be helpful in alerting a homeowner of something going on and warding off robbers... however, if an intruding individual is bent on both suicide and destruction or just doesnt like leaving witnesses to the things they do, a siren, lights, or locked door offer virtually no protection. A safe room, is not exactly practical nor inexpensive... so a gun remains a more reasonable protective measure.
Plus, so far we are only talking home invasion. That is one thing... what about general mass hysteria or a riot or something of that nature. Imagine how our society would freak out without power for a month. That is another situation where having a means of protection could make a difference between being respected and left alone or being overrun for your supplies, etc. The way I see it, a gun is there as a hopefully never needed additional tool that COULD make a difference in extreme or unlikely situations.
In many cases a house fire would get out of hand before you could grab an extingisher and stop it, but most people keep one on hand in case of a situation where it could make the difference. Same with a gun.
1:39 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
As for the comparison to computer protection from intrusion... I tell you what... I have virus scanning software and such... viruses have still gotten through at times. Then what, I need is tools and the knowledge of how to use them that will help me deal with the virus and irradicate it.
Too much effort is being placed on trying to stop what we cannot stop simply via legislation or locked doors... or even security guards. If an individual is motivated to do harm, taking out some security guards is not going to be that hard for them. Just last week a husband took out his police officer wife because he chose to plan and ambush... anyone can be caught off guard and cannot be perfectly observant of everything going on around them at all times. And yes, I realize that means a gun owned is quite likely to not be in reach at the time it would be needed in many cases of attack or ambush, however, its not about the cases where it wouldnt have helped... its about the cases where it would. If an attack or intrusion is determined to be in the act, there is a bit of time in most buildings for an individual not at the point of the attack to get either to a gun or out of the building... but which choice makes sense is likely to vary in the details of each scenario. Having a gun is not about being a "Rambo"... it is about having a plan for some worst-case scenarios. I would say its a wise thing to have plans in the event of being attacked in the modern world.
John Wilson
3:01 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
No computer anti-virus program is going to be perfect and stop 100% of viruses, Trojans and other malware; that is why all proficient security experts insist upon a multi-layered approach to computer security. IF you are good enough and have enough time, any computer can be breached. The point here is to significantly REDUCE the opportunities for that breach. Just because we cannot achieve a 100% security does not mean we should abandon all efforts to make intrusion more difficult.
No banning of various classes of firearms, ammunition, magazines, background checks, mental health screenings, temporary suicidal people, is ever going to stop 100% of firearm deaths… the plethora of firearms, registered, non-registered, easily available to EVERYONE and awash in America – that we will ever be able to stop this carnage. That does not mean we should cease in our attempts at REDUCING these incidents; that certainy does not mean casually dismissing all potential helpful solutions, except arming everyone.
Guns in the hands of most people are more of a threat to them and those around them than they are a PROTECTION. It always seems like we are hearing about the 6-year old boy who was playing with his younger brother, and "accidently killed him" with the proverbial "unloaded gun."
I am not telling you not to purchase a firearm, ban all firearms, or anything of the sort; I am saying that "I think" this should be the last line [Layer] of defense, not the first.
4:00 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
I just personally do not think a security alarm, lights or locked doors offer a significant defense. I also think schools focusing on locking exterior doors as a safety mechanism offers little to no protection from an attack. It certainly offers some protections but not from the type of situation that occured at Sandy Hook. I do believe too much of what is discussed as "protections" in new gun laws relative to Sandy Hook offer little to no real protection.
As for kids shooting themselves or others with guns either accidentally or on purpose, I think anyone getting a gun takes on the responsibility of the security of it. As others have pointed out, most of us grew up as kids in households that had hunters in the family and thus there was actually pretty simple and easy access to guns and ammunition... we just didnt mess with it. Still parents have to know their kids either by age or by mentality. Young kids are naturally curious... some teens are suicidal and overly emotional. With young kids you have to assume that if they can get to the gun, they will.... however, gun locks and cabinets should work well. With teens, I think it increases the locking security needed AND if there is any reason to believe a kid is becoming unstable, removing the guns from the household would be wise as I would few cabinets or cases is are highly fool proof. Even if locked, I am sure there would be ways to open the case by destroying the case (saw, drill, etc).
5:08 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
My home defense weapon is a Remngton 870 pump action shotgun loaded up with 00 buck. That's 8 large pellets per shell, for a total of 40 pellets in a fully loaded gun. If I can't hit my intruder with that, I have no business owning any gun. The thing that worries me about an AR-15 is that if you miss, that round is going to penetrate far. It's going right through studs and into your neighbors house down the block.
6:01 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Chances are, you will sleep through the intruder in your home, AND your weapon will be stolen at some point. 10,000 to 1 that you will EVER "blow away" that intruder.
6:04 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Thanks for the reply... I am actually looking for reasons to feel good not getting an AR-15, as that one just seems interesting to me, but yeah, I certainly do not want to add more risk of hitting unintended targets. With the AR-15 there would also be more chance of the bullet hitting the right target but still riccocheying into unintended targets too, so yeah... that right there should rule it out for me. I knew of this characteristic to some extent, but I didnt give it as much credence as I should in retrospect. In terms of shooting to not hit someone in a nearby room, I know my house well enough to aid me in aiming in a manner to not catch a loved one in the unfortunate situation that I might encounter an attacker... but having a bullet go into the next house and/or the next house... yeah, that I would not want.
While the ability to hit something at a farther distance would be useful in extreme situations, I should probably not be thinking in terms of one gun to do it all. One for home defense and another in the event of societal collapse... but that is far less of a need and if something like that happened, a gun is probably not going to do much but delay the inevitable.
My brother actually suggested a pistol that shoots a small shot shell or a bullet... I forget what the name of that was... "The Judge" or something like that. I assume that's a nickname. That might really be the better alternative due to the mixed ammo abilities.
6:09 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
This was linked the other day and pretty much says .223 is fine for home defense but don't use fmj and to use jhp self defense rounds (the self defense rounds are very expensive though) http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
Daniel S.
7:20 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
I honestly can't say I know anyone who buys an AR-15 for home defense. Shotguns, pistols & revolvers. I like the 410 with #4 Buck or 20gauge with #3 Buck.
7:29 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
I would have to say an AR of any caliber 223/556, 308 is most def not a good choice for home defense. If you have maybe a 22 conversion or even a 9mm upper then maybe. Just the fact its bigger and more bulky than a nice handgun. Plus the fact its such a high speed round that will def travel thru walls plural. Just remember there may be loved ones on the other side not to mention neighbors.
12:05 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
JW if you're concerned about bullet penetration then a .223 might not be for you unless you do some research into ammo. I just saw some ammo for handguns that are made for home defense and mushroom out and stop even sooner than hollow point so take a look at that. No matter what you choose I suggest having some light source on your weapon. A good pistol light can go for only $100.
10:32 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Yeah Wilson, and when I move I'll just pack it up and take it all with me. What shall I use when I go somewhere? If you dont like guns, Fine. BUT I am keeping mine.
6:13 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Greensheet... like any tool, the gun isnt really about the situations where it ends up not working, its for the situations where it could have made the difference. Depending what an intruder does, I would say the odds are significantly better than 10,000 to 1. They might enter another room first and startle someone else who reacts or tip off an animal first, etc. I would agree for most houses and situations odds are against ending up aware enough to do something in time... but if it were happening and I did have enough warning... I would hate to be left thinking... damn... if only I had planned ahead while whatever terrible thing occurs next.
While arming teachers has some scary side effect potential, I think we could all agree that had the Shady Hook principal or any teacher been able to stop that situation it would have been great compared to what actually happened. At least the shooter killed himself sooner than later.... because I think he absolutely would have created even more victims. It just irks me that the focus is in trying to legislate controls mechanisms he used more than in the need to protect and the need to stop individuals that are bent on destruction regardless of their chosen instrument. I think that does a disservice to those killed.
Daniel S.
7:31 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Any shotgun is a good home defense weapon, get the shortest legal length you can; easier to handle in a confined space. Or their are the many handgun variations of Judge by Taurus or the Governor by S&W and also the Circuit Judge by Rossi/Taurus; which is a revolver long gun that shoots 45 Colt or 410 shells. There are also many derringers that handle 410 shells (Bond Arms has interchangeable barrels), good snake gun and car conceal weapon. In addition, you can purchase shot shell ammo in most handgun calibers to use as a snake, or less lethal home defense round. Many gun owners suggest using #6 or smaller shot as home defense shotgun loads; won't penetrate walls with as much power as 00, 000 Buck or Slugs will. Using FMJ ammo inside a home is not a bright idea in any caliber.
8:50 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Obama wants to disarm the white race. That's his #1 priority. Once we are disarmed he can unleash his 'civilian army' which we all know will only consist of
brown people.
Lyle Ruble
9:11 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
@WPN1488....The only people that I want to see disarmed are people like you.
Steve ®
1:33 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Awe Lyle doesn't like when you bring up racist fact about Obama and the constitution. We should all pout in the corner about taking the first amendment away from Lyle.
8:19 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
In Wisconsin 84 % of violent crimes are done by blacks, 14% by Whites. Weather you want to address this issue and call it racist, fine, but it is an issue.
Fire Fly
10:35 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
You own your freedom to a gun !! From the Rev war to WW2 .
John Wilson
3:18 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Fire Fly –
Did you never read anything about Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Yes, those were GUNS…
I think every American should be allowed to carry one of those GUNS…
Fire Fly
4:09 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013
A Bomb are Guns ? Of course your right Mr. Wilson one Hell of a big bang ..,
So we should have invated Japan and lose how many GI 's doing that. Thank's to
Harry my Dad and his brothes didn't have to die and I was able to live to write this
posting. Nice try Wilson !!
John Wilson
10:38 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013
Fire Fly –
From your initial post: "You own your freedom to a gun !! From the Rev war to WW2 ."
[Canons, mortars, grenades, 1000-pound bombs, airplanes, Hellfire missiles, napalm, torpedoes, spying and military intelligence had nothing to do with winning any battle or our freedom… only GUNS…
Your asinine claim that GUNS ended WWII is patently false! [I am happy that you are alive so you could write such an incredibly stupid and dumb post; I am sure Harry and your dad would be so proud of you…
"On August 6, 1945, the US dropped an atomic bomb ("Little Boy") on Hiroshima in Japan. Three days later a second atomic bomb ("Fat Man") dropped on the city of Nagasaki." [These were the only times nuclear weapons have been used in war.]
"Estimates of total deaths in Hiroshima have generally ranged between 100,000 and 180,000, out of a population of 350,000." [Civilians, men, women and children]
"22.7% of Nagasaki's buildings were consumed by flames. Estimates of casualties from Nagasaki have generally ranged between 50,000 and 100,000." [Civilians, men, women and children]
WWII was ENDED by the monolithic violence of the USA MIC [Military Industrial Complex] use of the most destructive weapon known to humankind at the time. GUNS played no part in this atrocious and totally unjustified attack, upon a largely civilian population. [Collateral damage to you GUN NUTS]
Yes, I see your point; unfortunately, it is on the top of your head…
6:03 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Mr Wilson-You fully understand what he was saying. There is one reason and one reason alone this Country has never been invaded by a foriegn enemy. Thanks largely to this Country having armed citizens. That is truely what the 2nd amendment is all about!!! Has nothing to do with hunters, sportsman ect. But rather the people having the ability to defend and protect themselves period from a tyrannical Government which we are currently experiencing, enemies foriegn and domestic!!! Dont Tread On Us!! It is a GOD given, non negoitable right
Fire Fly
8:09 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Can you believe this guy People : Mr Wilson would have thrown up his hands at the first sight of someone with a gun . Would you trust this Guy to protect your family or love ones. We would have never been free people because Mr.Wilson would have talked them to death and call people like me and you Asinine, Stupid , dumb , Gun nuts . Sure Mr Wison whatever you say , thanks for the 411 Mr Wilson on American history. Tom Hanks yelling WILSONNNNNNNNNNNN as you float in your ocean of
belivies . Stay safe Wilson
John Wilson
10:57 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Patriot –
The reason we have never been invaded by a foreign country is: a) we have always invaded other countries, first, then set up bases in their country and dominated them militarily and economically b) we have the most expensive – MIC costs Americans more than the next 12-industrialized countries combined – and that provides a significant deterrent for any country to even contemplate invading the USA c) we have limited nuclear weapons to the USA and to those countries that we control or have political, military and economic dominion or influence over.
Your insignificant firearm(s) has nothing to do with protecting this country, protecting your property or family; it is only a means of compensating for your own individual huge lack of self-esteem.
Furthermore, It's very clear the 2nd Amendment, which says, "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." is not talking about individuals owning and having arms, but state militia's, which are now state police forces and/or national guards which are organized and state run.
Moreover, this Amendment is clearly about one of the major tensions set forth in the Constitution, "State's Rights," not individual citizen's rights. It is clear that the syntax of the Amendment has the second part of the statement referring to the first, which was totally ignored by the Supreme Court in their very unwise "activist" decision.
12:04 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Mr Wilson-Once again nothing but liberal biased BS!!! You could not be more wrong owith your interpretation of the second amendment. A well regulated militia could be assembled at anytime if needed. Its happened once in history and is possible again. So why dont we divide the country and all you liberals can live in one part and us constitutional conservatives the other
John Wilson
3:13 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Patriot -
I really suspect that you and your ilk have way too much testosterone flooding through your bodies to engage in anything even approaching a rational conversation.
Furthermore, the country is already extremely divided - you probably missed that while searching for your loin-clothe - between the cave men [Neocons] and the people who actually read and comprehend things: that would be everyone else in the country.
Steve ®
1:49 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
.223 ammo has a VERY long waiting list right now. Which is a shame. We have an annual snowmobiling trip up north and one of the days we like to spend shooting all sorts of firearms. The AR15 is the most fun with it's bump stock and 100 round drums.
But this year it may not be possible as it looks to be a 1-2 month waiting period for ammo. Spurred by the crazy liberals like Brian and Lyle and their gun ban idiotic. But god bless the spur of economic growth and influx of private donations to the NRA.
I guess instead we'll target shoot the 50 other weapons we have in-stock. Wonder if they know how many are really out there?
Happy shooting!
9:59 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Steve ... After reading all your comments you definitly are one person that should not be allowed to own a gun. Maybe that's why so many people are buying guys , to protect themselves from nut cases like you.
Daniel S.
11:30 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
I haven't heard Steve say anything about wanting to harm, harass or take away rights and freedoms from innocent people, have you?
Steve ®
1:02 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Lol. Now guns can protect Bucky? You guys got to stick with the correct talking points. Checkmate.
8:38 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Steve ... Started shooting when I was 12. Going on 61. Never missed an opening day deer gun hunt in Wisconsin. Bought , sold and shot more guns then I can count. Was an NRA member. Still respect everyones opinions but refuse to get sucked into the paranoid nut pool.
John Wilson
2:56 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Lynell Milner –
I think you would be far better served if you a) got yourself a good eye examination b) wore your glasses c) go see a good psychiatrist and d) take you medications regularly.
Paranoia will destroy yah…
Lynell Milner
10:12 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Two days prior to the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon, shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. By the time police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead.
That armed man was 22-year-old Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit. Thanks to 'gun-free zones', 26 people -- including 20 children -- died when most lives could have been saved had there been even ONE trained concealed carry holder present in the school.
I have been a gun owner since I was 15, 50 years now. If I did not already own guns, I would by one and be properly trained in its use at a good shooting range. Guns don't kill people in and of themselves. People kill -- and they will use any means they have if they are truly intent on killing. One should always remember guns are merely a tool, and in the right hands, guns save more lives than they take. Don't make yourself a victim simply because you fear guns and leave my guns the heck alone!
10:24 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
And lets not forget another tragic shooting much closer to home. Witness statements in the Brookfield Spa shooting said in the middle of the shooting outside, two armed duck hunters on their way home saw what was going on and chased the suspect. The suspect ran back inside and shot himself. Good guys with guns stop or at least minimize bad guys with guns.
Daniel S.
11:38 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Thank you Lynell; somehow we need to keep the message alive: The Human Element is the variable of concern. We know where the True focus needs to be, for some reason(s) our government is letting the criminal element dictate the law of the land and we the fine, upstanding, patriotic citizens need to speak louder than those running in fear that do not trust themselves with a method of self defense that has been around for centuries.
9:30 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Here is a little education for the low-information voter (liberals) on crime stats: http://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0
Brian Carlson
7:53 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Darrel.... Here is some education for you from the FBI. We are experiencing an historic LOW in crime rates right now since WW2! You blame the government for letting criminals set the policies and then call yourself patriotic. Read the article.
You folks who believe we are all in grave danger of anarchy, that thugs are lumbering down the streets toward your homes or that Zombies are rising out of your backyards...should also be aware that the police another agencies are actually doing a pretty great job historically.
8:31 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Gun ownership is at an all time high in USA.
Crime rates are at a historic low.
Awesome- buy more guns.
Brian Carlson
8:38 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Craig... I thought you would credit Obama as people continually pin the level of violence on him and on liberals in general. No matter. I should point out that the FBIs report did not credit all the heroic civilians who pack heat as even contributive to the decline in violent crimes. What do they know of course? Prevention and being better at anticipating violence before it happens WAS the primary cause proposed. Imagine that.
8:52 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian, I can't blame it on Obama until he starts flying drones over American's heads and terrorizing our own people.
Our society has become predisposed to violence and we really do not understand why. Is it the downward trend of two parent families? Is it lazy parenting in general? Or have we simply forgotten to teach kids how to respect others?
Brian Carlson
9:18 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
"Our society has become predisposed to violence and we really do not understand why. Is it the downward trend of two parent families? Is it lazy parenting in general? Or have we simply forgotten to teach kids how to respect others?"
All potentially contributing factors... I agree with you. The issue is LARGE and multi-faceted. It is a culture of violence...not that all of us are out clubbing our neighbors yet, but violence permeates our mindset from many directions. Bottom line...anger, even non-localized, a gut frustration with life, with one's lot in it and the despair of being able to significantly change one's situation combined with a sense that a lot of people are ridiculously "well off," the huge discrepancy in wealth, I believe contributes quite a bit to what we see in terms of violence. The national model, leadership in a Global War Against Terror ( one of the most bald faced oxymorons ever penned), isnt lost on kids who want to be part of the super gang in their hood or on young people who entertain themselves attacking Yemeni "terrorists," on the latest video game. There is a lot of martial mentality going on.....
John Wilson
11:08 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Craig –
"Year-to-year changes are notoriously volatile, especially for lesser-volume crimes like murder," James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, wrote in his blog. "They must be viewed with caution, avoiding the temptation to make too much out of rather little."
Daniel S.
12:24 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Individuals are doing an even better job (happened Friday in Atlanta GA): Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her 9yr old twins. Her husband called 911 from his work, the intruder was out of the house even after being shot 5 times and began to drive away before police found him crashed down the block.
Lex Parsimoniae
12:39 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
" No matter. I should point out that the FBIs report did not credit all the heroic civilians who pack heat as even contributive to the decline in violent crimes. What do they know of course? Prevention and being better at anticipating violence before it happens WAS the primary cause proposed." Of course that's what the FBI's report stated, how could any self respecting government agency proposition a different causality.
Seriously, though...stop and think about it. Police do an excellent job of investigating the crime (after the fact), and catching the perpetrator in many cases. DAs do a decent job of convicting the criminals (at least the ones that they deem they can convict, after reducing the charge for a "guaranteed conviction). Judges, especially in Milwaukee Cty, do a mediocre job by giving "slap on the hand" sentences, if they sentence at all. The penal system does a less than stellar job by "rehabilitating" the perps, rather than punishing them.
So, does this "system" reduce the violent crime rate, or does the threat of being shot dead if you unlawfully enter someones domicile, or threaten bodily harm? After a while, an armed society if a polite society (especially if you don't know who is armed).
Brian Carlson
1:59 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
LEX, people don't know who is armed NOW. They have never known who was armed. Do you think this is the first generation that has had weapons? Your logic sucks.
Daniel S.
2:06 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Thank Lex, you are correct; we need to keep the names of those who are licensed to carry private; it's no one's business. If we have a license to carry, we have been cleared by our state and an a background and print check.
Young Conservative
2:14 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian Carlson, you coward. Please contact this woman and inform her of how you want to take away her right to defend herself.
Georgia mother hides children, shoots intruder 5 times during home invasion, police say
2:20 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
While I don't care so much if people know who is armed, I really don't want it to be known who isn't armed. I prefer that the would be criminals continue to err on the side of caution and assume that everyone is armed...
2:22 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
The other bad thing about advertising who is armed... is that it tends to do the opposite and advertise who ISNT. In NY where they published the names and locations of registered gun owners, the people who should be most upset are those without guns as they advertised which places are best to AVOID... where do you think the robbers are going to go, the known armed houses, or the likely unarmed houses?
John Wilson
2:30 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Daniel S. -
This is all PUBLIC INFORMATION!
I want to know how many guns are in my neighborhood, and who has them, before I send any of my children into your hazardous environment!
Furhermore, because the state of Wisconsin approved you, - we know they never make mistakes - sometime in the past, does not mean that you are not an alcoholic, drug abuser, mental patient or may become bat crap crazy today!
2:42 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
What kind of 'hazardous environment' are you worried about sending your children into John?
Do you really think that neighborhoods without registered gun owners are safer than neighborhoods with gun owners? The number of gun crimes increased dramatically in Chicago and Washington DC when their gun bans were in effect...
John Wilson
3:01 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
CowDung -
Any resident that I know has any firearms in it...
3:02 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Are you saying that if you don't know that a residence has firearms in it, it isn't hazardous?
3:05 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
...and if you want to know if a home has firearms in it before sending your kids there, ask the people that live there, don't require that it be published and readily available to the general public.
John Wilson
3:25 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Yes, the "robbers" are all avidly searching through the local newspapers and internet sites, just searching for those homes that are NOT on the "HAVE GUN(s)" list. I am sure they spend the bulk of their day doing just that. [You might just want to factor in the well-known fact that databases are notoriously wrong and incomplete.]
They certainly are not targeting homes that they have already pre-checked that they know are just loaded with goodies for them; they simply just rely on public databases to find a target.
Great point!
3:38 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
If the anti-gun nuts have their way, then criminals wouldn't have to spend much time at all poring through newspapers and internet sites--the information would be tabulated and easy to find. Few robbers are going to break into a home knowing that the owner is armed. Criminals tend to prey on the 'easy' targets--maximize their reward, and minimize their risk.
5:20 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Ok... Wilson... you continue to display a extreme level of briliance that exists only in your own mind. On one level you are ok with perhaps bans or extreme gun control because of the FEW cases where people go crazy and do harm. BUT... you pass off making the information of where registered guns are easy to get ahold of as if that is not a threat to those who do not own guns? I am not going to claim it is a tool that would be used by all harmful individuals, but I am sure it would be a tool that at least a FEW would take advantage of. So, if our goal of safety and security is to cover the bases of the unlikely things that do or could happen, how could you argue against one of these unlikely to occur situations when it would almost surely occur in some cases? You just flop around to whatever comment you feel fits your need. Logic be damned. As more than just I have pointed out, if someone is looking to burglarize a house and gun registration information is easily obtainable at least some crooks with access to a computer would learn to check that information in their assessment of what to target. The more readily available the information is, the more it will be used.
Something being public information that people can go and research at a courthouse is WAY different from it being easy to access and search across.
I wish all criminals were as stupid as you think they are.... though luckily most, like you, think they are much smarter than they actually are.
John Wilson
5:27 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
CowDung -
It is PUBLIC INFORMATION and it belongs in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
There are many people who will, if asked - amazing isn't it - lie about possessing a gun.
I would rather have it PUBLISHED and then I could check that through my law enforcement contacts.
That way, I could get the word out to all the parents in my neighborhood - I'm a neighborhood watch commander - parents and friends.
Finally, IF you GUN OWNERS are so PROUD about your GUNS and your support for the NRA, then PROUDLY PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OUT THERE!
No, you chicken hawks would rather hide behind your faux names on the Patch!
Daniel S.
5:41 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
What is the Intelligent Purpose behind broadcasting the names and addresses of Legal Gun Owners? How do you Not see the moronic thought behind this? You give criminals a list of places to go to steal weapons when no one is home and also inform them of who is unarmed. You achieved nothing intelligent at all by making this public information. What happened to the right to privacy for those who are within the legal realm of life?
John Wilson
5:55 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
CowDung -
I know the homes that my children go to play or stay overnight, and I know the parents very well, both through my personal contacts with them, and with the extra checking that I do. Parents have a special responsibility to their children.
As children grow, they make new friends and want to go to new homes; the EXTRA LEVEL OF HAZARD of having a firearm in the home is not something I as a conscientious parent am willing to accept.
You may send your children to an al Qaeda home; that is your choice...
John Wilson
6:16 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
There is nothing logical or informative about your comments on this blog... everything you have said has been stated before, debunked and totally dismissed in prior statements, both by other bloggers and myself in reference to this topic.
You may, of course, continue to blather on and repeat neocon talking points; I am just passing up on reading the same tired drivel…
Lex Parsimoniae
6:54 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
That's being very vigilant of you John. Did you also check if these houses of your neighbors have liquor cabinets? Do they keep prescription drugs on hand? Do they lock up their car keys when they leave the house?
When I was a kid, 90% of my friends had guns in their houses. At that time, trigger locks and biometric gun safes were pretty much non existent. The previous items listed were the things that we got into "trouble" with (not so much the prescription drugs, but they seem to be so much more pervasive today that I thought I would mention it). We had all been exposed to firearms at a relatively young age, so they were not such a huge curiosity to us. The bigger problem today, is that certain sects of society makes firearms so taboo; everyone knows that with kids, the verboten items are SOOOO much more interesting to the curious. Maybe instead of instilling fear of the unknown, you should try a little education.
BTW, how do you feel about a list being published of all of your neighbors that are, or ever have been, prescribed psychotropic drugs? Because some of those are a heck of a lot scarier than a law abiding citizen that may be in possession of a licensed firearm.
Lex Parsimoniae
7:03 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian, sometimes you need to read between the lines...so I'll spell it out for you. More people than ever legally own firearms, more places than ever (in the US) allow concealed carry, violent crime rates are down. For someone considering doing evil against another individual, the probability of that individual being able to defend themselves is now higher than ever. May cause the perp to reconsider, or he/she may just seek out a gun free zone.
John Wilson
7:10 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Daniel S. –
The "Intelligent Purpose" of broadcasting names and addresses of Legal Gun Owners is: a) because it is PUBLIC INFORMATION b) it allows the citizens in the community to know who has a gun and make an informed decision whether they want their children to go to these homes c) IF you have a gun or guns they should be locked in a secure safe, so criminals would not be likely to steal your manhood, and finally, you simply do NOT have any RIGHT to PRIVACY when you purchase, register and obtain a CCW permit. Privacy regarding firearm ownership is a fiction, just like the existence of a GOD.
Furthermore, the more firearms and ammunition in any given community or area, the more the chances for mistakes, mayhem, over-reaction and firearm deaths. GUNS do not protect life; they threaten it… Insurance companies know this too, that is why insurance rates – for everyone in the area – skyrocket because of you clowns…
You don't want the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution; you, and other GUN NUTS are simply anarchists who want to do anything they want! Then, when the Constitution tells you, you can't do that out of deference to the public welfare, you cry about losing a freedom you never had!
7:21 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
John Wilson-Burglars actually do read newspapers and the Internet for victims. Two men earlier this year arrested for over 40 burglaries of vacant homes for sale/under foreclosure. That was the biggest one I heard of but many others that did dozens of homes and where did they say they found out about the homes...newspaper and Internet. And to correct your error about CCW permits in Wisconsin at least...It is not public record at all. The law was written to protect citizens simply exercising their constitutional right. The law specifically states police officers can be criminally charged for randomly searching the database. There are very few instances that law enforcement can even search the CCW database.
7:21 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
John Wilson:
I am not a gun owner. I count on the fact that it is not so easy for criminals to know if I am a gun owner or not. Publishing names of gun owners will put me more at risk for people breaking into my home as robbers don't have to worry about me shooting them.
It's great that you are confident enough that you want to broadcast the fact that you do not own guns, the rest of us would prefer to let criminals assume that we are armed and would be a threat to them should they decide to target our home and/or family.
John Wilson
7:28 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Lex Parsimoniae -
Prescription drugs, psychotropic or not are currently covered under some very strict PRIVACY POLICIES and LAWS; Legal ownership of guns are not!
This is just another false equivalency argument...
What other inane arguments do you have in that box of rocks?
7:32 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Also Wisconsin circuit court records now protect certain victims. Citizens obtaining restraining orders and injunctions against others no longer have addresses or birth dates posted to protect victim. But now its apparently ok to post their info just differently. There may be other possible ways to obtain someone's address but posting it for simply exercising your rights puts thousands at risk. It's just makes it that much easier to find someone. Why is it ok for antigun citizens to say a couple more gun restrictions will just make it a bit more difficult to kill someone but I can't say the same when it comes to protecting my family's info?
7:38 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
I just gotta say... I am glad Wilson is anti-gun.... with the mental issues he clearly displays all over his comments, that is absolutely for the best!
7:42 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
John I do agree that HIPPA and other state laws protect medical records. But don't you find it a bit odd that your constitutional right is not protected but a non constitutional right is? Doesn't seem right???
John Wilson
7:45 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
CowDung -
As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, I have (2) Glock 17 handguns, I have served 6-years in the Marines and I practice at a gun range twice a week, plus I have a CCW permit.
Publish my name and address; I do not have a problem with that; I also am an instructor for the safe use of firearms.
IF you do not own or want to own a firearm, that is entirely your choice; I know I have the maturity, training, experience and safe knowledge to adequately handle the RESPONSIBILITIES OF GUN OWNERSHIP… by far the majority of GUN NUTS simply DO NOT!
Lex Parsimoniae
7:55 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
John, I'm well acquainted with HIPAA...If you could get beyond the kindergartner level on "Are you smarter than a fifth grader", you would understand that I was saying I am more wary of individuals on psychotropic (especially those that have been prescribed, but have discontinued use) than I am of a licensed firearms holder. Unless, of course, that person is on psychotropics, as well.
What the media is so infamous for, is advancing these recent tragedies through points that advance their agenda. Meanwhile, often leaving out facts of the cases that don't nicely follow their agenda. Bias isn't necessarily what someone says, it's often found in what they leave out.
The vast majority of mass shootings in the US have been documented cases of mental defect (DUHH), and most, if not all, were currently prescribed anti-depressants or other psychoactives. Guns are not the cause, they are simply the implement used to carry out the act.
John Wilson
8:01 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Str8shooter -
That is very interesting; perhaps you would share some legal sources for this with me.
I have (2) law enforcement agencies and (1) federal law enforcement agency that share that information with me, upon request. I will confess that I have known these folks over 20-years and that may be my edge, however, at no time was I ever denied nor was I informed that they were putting their position in jeopardy by providing that information.
Furthermore, I would suspect a freedom of information request would certainly yield that information to almost anyone.
8:01 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
John Wilson:
I am a bit confused. After your statement:
"As children grow, they make new friends and want to go to new homes; the EXTRA LEVEL OF HAZARD of having a firearm in the home is not something I as a conscientious parent am willing to accept. "
It would seem that you wouldn't want you kids in a home with firearms. How does that square with your admission that you (a parent) own firearms and presumably keep them in your home?
It must make for some interesting community dynamics to not allow your children to play in homes where firearms are owned, yet your children live in such a home. Seems a bit hypocritical to say the least...
8:04 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
...and I would argue that most of the 'gun nuts' you warn us about believe that they also know that they have the maturity, training, experience and safe knowledge to adequately handle the RESPONSIBILITIES OF GUN OWNERSHIP.
8:14 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
John-This is from a Wisconsin legal brief from the state attorneys office..."Restrictions on Release of License Information. DOJ maintains a computerized listing of the names and application information of licensees but may not make any of the information available to the public except in the course of a relevant prosecution. A law enforcement officer may not request or be provided information concerning a specific licensee except for purposes such as confirming that a license is valid, and the law enforcement agency may not make any of the information public except as part of a court proceeding". Your "police friends" are violating state law if what you say is accurate. The law was written specifically to limit police and citizens' availability to citizens exercising their rights. Obviously not all states were written that way.
John Wilson
8:18 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Str8shooter -
It may seem odd or not "Right" to you, however, laws are not created with "right" in mind. Slavery was not "Right, however, it was an over 100-year law and in reality far beyond that.
Additionally, I mentioned insurance companies before; these folks need to know the potential hazards in any group or community to adequately access the risks inherent in that population, without that, they are sort of flying blind. If you had a community of 10,000, people and everyone had a gun(s) you would have some rather terrifying liability, especially if you had no knowledge of that situation...
8:22 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@JW-Plzzzzzzz stop your ignorance is showing. The progressive Liberal mind truely amazes me. Not quite sure how your even able to tie your own shoes. Zero common sense and most def no Logic
8:29 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
I never said every law ever created was a good law but is have to disagree and say the purpose of laws is to make things right and keep the way of life that society seems is "right". Laws protect and keep society safe or at least that is a laws purpose. When someone breaks a law that are looked upon as doing something wrong "not right" so although I by no means believe all laws make sense I do believe that's exactly what laws are intended for.
John Wilson
8:40 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Lex Parsimoniae -
It just seems to me that you are are very frightened person.
No amount of GUNS is going to solve your problem.
No amount of psychiatric history on people - because anyone can become overwhelmed at any time - is going to solve your problem there either.
Psychology/psychiatry are simply not very accurate predictors of human behavior, even though people are fond of saying that you may judge future behavior by past behavior...
Frighten people do not exactly make the best decisions… that is why I am so against everyone in America having massively powerful firearms. That is as ludicrous as giving every 5-year old a fully loaded M16.
John Wilson
9:03 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
CowDung –
BELIEF is not FACT... and, ultimately, it is MY DECISION!
Let me address your alleged confusion.
Because of my life experiences, I am very good at accessing people in a face-to-face situation. It just happens to be something, probably passed on by my parents DNA.
When the GUN NUTS have over 20-years of specialized training, actual combat experience and a good level of gun safety and emotional maturity, somewhat comparable to mine, then I will seriously entertain allowing letting my children go into their home with guns in it.
My experience with GUN NUTS has shown me that that all of the folks that I have met have been rank amateurs in almost all areas relating to GUNS; that is why I refer to them as GUN NUTS. [Not all people who own guns are GUN NUTS] I will not subject my children or myself to these walking time bombs.
I hope I have cleared up some of your confusion, as where GUNS are concerned, I will always err on the side of safety.
You BELIEVE what you will...
9:16 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
You sound exactly like the gun nuts, touting your years of military experience, 'emotional maturity', and a superior ability to handle your weapons responsibly...
John Wilson
9:23 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Str8shooter -
I understand the text of your answer, however, I believe I requested sources... that would be internet sites that I might access and read.
And yes, different states do legislate different laws and exceptions, etc., that is one of the beautiful things about living in the USA... 50-different individual state laws regulating gun information and the federal government having their own special law.
Then we have the FISA Courts where duplicity overrides everything and you are left with complete legal chaos...
9:37 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
John Wilson- Here is just one. They are Wisconsin law and very simple to look up each statute online. As you can see it is not public record and even law enforcement by law are able to check the database only when a citizen with a permit or claiming to have a permit is with police. You'll want to go to one of the last pages for that topic.
John Wilson
10:55 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Str8shooter -
I do think there is a newer edition, and this one does state that the AG has not reviewed this, plus, all the oversight is by the DOJ, so that might make some of these provisions problematic... even if the enforcement is left to Wisconsin.
It does give me a good start though...
5:56 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
John -I provide an article documenting Wisconsin law. I believe my article even has statutes and as I said its very simple to find the Wisconsin statutes. I KNOW without a doubt the Wisconsin CCW permit holders are not public record. If you don't want to believe me or read the statutes that's fine but this is accurate. You specifically asked for an article but clearly had no intention of accepting you were misinformed about the law and that your "police friends" can be criminally charged if what you say is true.
John Wilson
9:59 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Str8shooter –
Hold up there a nanosecond, little man… you are very quick on the draw here today…
I asked you for internet sites regarding CCW permits not being PUBLIC INFORMATION… you provided ONE, and I THANKED YOU!
What is your PROBLEM?
There really are (2) distinct issues here, that I brought forward – regarding guns – in the state of Wisconsin.
1) Registration – PUBLIC RECORDS
2) CCW permit – PUBLIC RECORDS
The law site you provided seems to be clear that Wisconsin [and references to statutes] does not want the holders of CCW permits to be in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. You are correct on that count. Give yourself a gold star...
I merely pointed out that the site you referenced was from August 2, 2011. I further pointed out the large DISCLAIMER at the heading of this DOJ/CCW document, and the fact that at that time, the AG had not reviewed it.
Further, I stated that this was a good starting point for me. Again, I thank you for that.
We know (correction, I know) that the flow of information and interpretation from top down within law enforcement and any bureaucracy can be very problematic and sometimes confusing.
I will contact my sources and relay my questions and concerns, as I certainly do not want to put anyone's employment in jeopardy. Moreover, I will continue to do further research on the CCW permit PUBLIC INFORMATION issues, as I stated in my last post.
You have been helpful; please take a chill pill..
Lex Parsimoniae
1:46 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
John, your "debating" style is really quite entertaining. Passive aggressive at best, sociopathic perhaps.
You have a habit of telling people that you don't know (but disagree with ideologically) to "take a chill pill", yet are the first one during the discourse to belittle or denigrate the individual, rather than refuting their statement with a counterargument along the same logical thread. Interesting; maybe I hit a little too close to home with my pharmacology report comment. If so, I apologize.
John Wilson
3:22 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Lex Parsimoniae -
One cannot challenge, debate or counter an opinion, delusion or fantasy, especially when there are no facts presented to support that opinion, delusion or fantasy. In cases such as these, any opinion is as good as any other opinion presented.
If someone interprets numbers as a Trillion, when they are clearly Billion, and that individual consistently relies on name-calling and snarky comments to refute a factual argument, I am going to call it what it is: mathematical ignorance and HS sophomoric antics.
I do not suffer fools for an eternity, however, I do both appreciate nuance and often use it in my prose. If one cannot follow the thread, the consistent, historic puerile context of some of these posters, then get a reading comprehension course, do not read or answer my posts; there are options here.
When I do not know the very complex and comprehensive solution(s) to gun safety regulations here in America, I will tell you that, "I don't know." I will suggest some avenues that might be fruitful for exploration.
I will not call you a kindergarten level, passive-aggressive or sociopathic personality for your style of prose; I might suggest that terms specifically defined, and having extremely precise diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV should probably not be thrown about as haphazardly, as lay people with no psychiatric training.
In closing, I guess, the only germane issue here is that you are entertained…
John Wilson
12:46 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Darrel -
There is precious little meaningful information in any understandable form - you must remember the average reading comprehension in America is at an 8th grade level – for the low-information liberal, right-wing, independent, or just plain not interested groups in this country.
We cannot conflate the "General issue of Violet Crime" and "Murder Rates by Firearms" and say we have done anything significant to add to the understanding of either issue in this country.
We know that both "Violent Crime in General" and "Murder Rates by Firearms" are disproportionally higher in communities of 250,000 or more. No one is questioning that. Typically, the more people you have in any given area in America, the more "Crime in General" is going to occur. We also know that the more firearms in any given area in America, the more "Crimes by Gun" are going to occur. That is very intuitive, sensible and logical.
We live in a very mobile society; someone now living in a town of 35,000 may move, for many different reasons, usually employment, to a 250,000 community. Usually, these folks take their guns and attitude(s) with them on this move.
It is, however, rather refreshing to see a presentation on "Violence" and "Murder" without any overly recognizable agenda, other than conflating "Violent Crime in General" with "Murder Rates by Firearms."
Brian Carlson
2:25 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Young Con. You really need to either learn to read English or develop the ability to concentrate on sentences throughout an entire comment. I said both that I had no issue with the woman defending herself and that I seriously doubt the great balance of so called "liberals" do. You guys simply fly off the handle as soon as you detect someone doesn't sing your song. Once that happens,you must really be skimming, the minute you see my NAME. And, when you call someone a coward, it will get a lot more weight when you are not wearing a mask. Who is hiding? Another masked man or whatever you are....
3:08 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Disarming White European Americans is a precursor to ethnic cleansing of White European Americans. And, believe me – our (white male Conservatives) genocide is the #1 goal of our Cultural Marxist enemies, as evidenced by the 66 plus million Whites who were murdered when the ancestors of these ideological radical Progressive psychopaths seized absolute power over Russia in 1917. If you have not made a contribution to the National Rifle Association yet I suggest you do so.
Young Conservative
3:10 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Good point sir. .223 FMJ is still available and cheap at Cabelas, just picked up a bunch more this morning.
Brian Carlson
3:33 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Sir???? YC...You respect that paranoid racist statement? Ethnic cleaning of white European Americans??? Oh yeah..we are at great risk! WPN you need to get some help. People dont talk to you because they think you are crazy. Whatever happened to you want you to hear someone say, go get some help.
Fred van der Wal
3:39 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@WPN1488.While I grew up in (white) Europe.it was never a real thing of debate.Either you had white skin colour or you had not.Coming here to the USA I only have found out how disgracefull and sickning the color white is.
I think you and folks like you need to go back to Europe and walk the streets and find out for yourself that white hatred lives only on the USA side of town.
Brian Carlson
4:15 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Fred, people that hide behind these labels, even more so those that have intentionally threatening ones like WPN, are verbal thugs, an exact parallel to the violent thugs they decry. They hope their talk will frighten you... They hope masks will intiidate you. Insecurity and fear is the context of their world and hate is their response. They latch onto simplistic "answers" to the problems they face, as racism provides, in order to avoid dealing with their own feelings of inadequacy and the disabling fear they contain. They persist unchecked because sensible people avoid them, as readily as they cross to the other side of the street if they see a man grumbling to himself in public. They are zealots of simple black and white thought, fundamentalist of reactionary thinking. I am glad you spoke up.
7:41 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Sickening and disgraceful the color white is? Spoken like true weak self hating eurotrash. Go sacrifice yourself to the noble animals why don't you.
3:36 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Hitler/Obama comparison
Brian Carlson
4:49 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Craig... Is that an SNL sketch??? He forgot to mention that Hitler and Obama both had two legs and breathed oxygen and were fed milk as children. And his expert research is from a random woman named Kitty.
5:04 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian I am sorry I thought Kitty was obvious.
Kitty Werthmann survived Hitler, you should be able to learn about her on the google machine...
5:24 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Please read the above link Brian and then tell me it sounds like an SNL sketch.
Remember this woman is not partisan.
This should scare the hell out of most liberals.
5:39 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Craig-WOW!!! Her story is def some scary stuff. Way to many similarities
Brian Carlson
6:40 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Craig, it's a fascinating article and appreciate anyone posting intelligent commentary that is more than off the shelf parroting of their clubs spiel. I am very versed in another, parallel story...that of the state terrorism in Argentina during the years 1976 - 1983.
The dynamics are similar in many respects and, of course, many Nazis moved to Argentina following the war. The Nazi effect, if I can coin a term, was part of the state repression there.
There are many things I don't like about the current administration. I have been vocal and straightforward about these issues. At the same time, it's very evident to me as a white male that a large part of the foundation for anti-Obama rhetoric comes simply from racist sentiments. You can sort through this blog and guess how many people here would be absolute fine with a conservative BLACK President. so I react to that bullshit spin... I hate racism. It sickens me. It's moronic, atavistic and completely destructive to all races.
I don't think the Hitler/ Obama comparison has a lot of serious weight. They were both leaders of empires....that is the best parallel.... But as politicians the fact they both say what people hope to hear and speak of a better world means nothing. Romney did the same. For gods sake they all hire very sophisticated folks to figure out what will sell to the masses.
Brian Carlson
6:44 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
If you want to find a Fuhrer, figure out who profits from what goes on with our empire. Obama is not fantastically wealthy nor can he do whatever the he'll he pleases. Corporatocracy is a vector point if you want to find some bad guys. And it's hard to find the guys...as they are all just board members in these massive industries and corporations.
6:47 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@CArlson-I will get u a flash lite in hopes you will be able to see. Im sure its pretty dark up there. Just like a stork with ur head buried in the sand!
Brian Carlson
7:11 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Craig... To be clear,the bald dudes ANALYSIS of Kitty's story is the SNL sketch.... His attempt to draw a grave comparison on the grounds of both O and H being golden tongued orators telling people what they want to hear at a time when their economies sucked, the ridiculous bit about the symbol O as a parallel to a Swatstika... I thought O was for Oprah myself... and the other heavy similarities...Hitlercarw and Obamacare. That is the joke. I actually respect what Kitty had to say once I got past the joker who was using Hitlerian but also simply politician tactics, I could add...albeit with less panache.
9:41 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian; I think her story speaks for itself. I am not going to spin my interpretation as I feel it is best left up to the reader.
Patriot: It scares the hell out of me too.
5:09 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
What blows me away is we have all these little things called a crisis. Those things like sandy Hook, Aurora, Beghazi, ect. Yet we all forget the real issue here. Barack Obama is the real issue. A man who was brought up to HATE white people, to Hate America and to think he gives a rats ass about this Country? People read his book Dreams Of My Father. Read about this man whom you liberals put into office for second term. WAKE UP AMERICA
Daniel S.
5:46 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
The real issue is much more than the current President, don't be fooled. There is more going on here than meets the eye and it is not just one party involved.
Brian Carlson
6:19 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Patriot? You evidently oppose people whom you feel are racists. Tell me and everyone else hee, how many non-white friends have you had in your life. Did you consider dating non-white people? You speak like a racist.... I don't know that you are a racist but I can tell you you come across as one. Would you marry a black woman if you were in love with her?
6:26 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Mr Carlson-You are a very poor judgement of Character. I am most def not racist. I have many black friends and yes find some black women very attractive. So not sure where u get Im racist? Read the mans book there Carlson. Those are Obamas words not mine, his fathers words, his mothers words and yes Michele as well. Oh lets not forget Reverend Wright all people Obama surrounded himself with. Not to mention his step father hated this Country!! Nothing racist at all. Just speaking facts. Read his book and memoirs. Educate yourself
9:45 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian: This may be a risky statement to make, but it is necessary to make a point.
One can be a racist and have black friends and/or lovers. Plantation owners often were attracted to black females and forced themselves on them.
I mention this because perception is not truth regarding racism.
5:11 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside Out. Self Destruction from within!! WONT HAPPEN
Daniel S.
5:30 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@John Wilson: you want to know where the hazardous environment is? What does that have to do with Legal owners who have a Carry permit? They are Legit, they are not the Hazard. The hazard are those who own illegally. That is not public information.
Going bat poop crazy, that can happen to anyone, gun owner or not. If you want to know your neighbors, then be neighborly and reach out to them, or better yet, get yourself again . . . if you are legally able to.
5:44 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@The Bitter Grabbers...It seems some people here have a problem with white people defending their race but have no problem with the NAACP or The National Council of La Raza defending theirs. I'm not threatening anyone, I'm simply stating what I feel is happing to the white race in America. You may think I'm insulting other races but I am not, I'm simply pointing out facts. You have nothing to fear from me except enlightenment.
Brian Carlson
6:15 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
White Whatever.... There is no need to" defend " a race. The NAACP doesn't exist to "defend" their race. Do you know anything about the NAACP? Have you ever had a non-white friend in your life or even spoken with a non-white, conversationally, respectfully for any time length?
6:33 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@Brian Carlson...National Association for the 'Advancement' of Colored People. La Raza: In the Spanish language the term Raza translates to 'race'. Both organizations were created to advance and protect their race. As long as members of the Congressional Black Caucus travel around America inciting racist hatred, telling audiences that the Tea Party 'wants to lynch blacks' I have no other choice but to defend my white race. Without question the Congressional Black Caucus and their radial Progressive foot soldiers have declared war on the Tea Party i.e. The American People. The Congressional Black Caucus's message to white America, "Sit down, shut up, and pay up." And they are very unhappy that the white producers don't want to pay anymore.
Brian Carlson
6:48 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
WPN...can you educate us as to your political affiliation and as to what the WPN1488 stands for? Surely you chose this handle with conviction instead of posting a legal name... What's up with your handle?
9:50 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
I know what some people have claimed WPN1488 stands for.
This is why I normally do not take sides when WPN1488 makes a post.
I want to remind people of what Biden said.."They wanna put ya'll back in chains."
This is not only untrue, it is perpetuation of racism by a moron.
Brian Carlson
7:01 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Patriot, I am very glad you have had or have some black friends. I suspected you might not have and that's why I asked for clarification. It makes me a bit sick that you refer to Sandy Hook and Aurara as a" little things" however...
7:08 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@Mr. Carlson...Repost from a while back, this came up once before. My screen name is in honor of my wife who I married on the 14th day in 1988 (that really hot summer). WPN is nothing more than my wife's initials.
Brian Carlson
7:16 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
WPN.... Thank you. I retract any statements about your handle in that case.
Lyle Ruble
7:50 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@Brian Carlson....Don't buy WPN's explanation concerning his screen name.
WPN - White Power Nation
14 - It stands for the 14 words from the imprisoned David Lane and is a rallying cry. The 14 words are:"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
11 - It stands for the letter H, which is Heil Hitler.
He also has a German Flag as a symbol.
Source: Southern Poverty Law Center
Avenging Angel
7:50 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian, you have a problem with screen names, but I can state that many of us that use them instead of our real names do so because we own businesses or work for companies we don't want exposed to thuggery just because we expressed an opinion.
Lyle Ruble
7:53 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@Brian Carlson...One correction- I hit the wrong number it 88 instead of 11. 8 represents the letter H and means Heil Hitler.
7:54 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Lyle I'm fairly certain a "pro white" radical who makes it known by creating a username symbolizing their beliefs isn't going to hide what their username means. Lets keep it somewhat reasonable at least.
Brian Carlson
7:22 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Here's a cookie for you guys... Warning...it's not Wayne LaPierre although he may have plagiarized from this one.
Good evening, everybody. This here is Archie Bunker of 704 Hauser Street, veteran of the big war, speaking on behalf of guns for everybody. Now, question: what was the first thing that the Communists done when they took over Russia? Answer: gun control. And there's a lot of people in this country want to do the same thing to us here in a kind of conspiracy, see. You take your big international bankers, they want to -- whaddya call -- masticate the people of this here nation like puppets on the wing, and then when they get their guns, turn us over to the Commies...
Now I want to talk about another thing that's on everybody's minds today, and that's your stick-ups and your skyjackings, and which, if that were up to me, I could end the skyjackings tomorrow... All you gotta do is arm all your passengers. He ain't got no more moral superiority there, and he ain't gonna dare to pull out no rod. And then your airlines, they wouldn't have to search the passengers on the ground no more, they just pass out the pistols at the beginning of the trip, and they just pick them up at the end! Case closed.
7:46 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Big event this Saturday in Oak Creek at East Middle School 3pm until 530. It seems our Mayor, Mayor Scaffidi has joined Mayors against guns and is holding a public forum. Guests to include Wi State Attorney, Our Fav Chris Abele, OC Police Cheif, memebers of the sikh community. I will def be there
7:59 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
There is a far higher rate of criminal activity within the ranks of the MAIG than among the ranks of more than eight million citizens who are licensed to carry concealed firearms in 49 states. The Mayor's among MAIG's own ranks have engaged in such activities as tax evasion , extortion, accepting bribes, trademark counterfeiting and perjury. One was even convicted of assaulting a police officer. Mayor Barrett should pay more attention to what his Mayor friends in MAIG are up to than worry about the gun owners he's been trying to demonize. WPN1488 will be at the event to monitor the radical Progressive proceedings.
Steve ®
8:06 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
I was at gun world yesterday, they are out of everything. Guy said they are selling about 10 million per week through all the stores. Just our store did 250k the day after sandy hook. They sold out of 30 gallon drums of .223 ammo, it holds 12,000 rounds and costs $5500.
Gun control, LOL good luck. Even the .50 cals are flying off the shelf.
8:28 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
The best days of America may be behind us but the fire of liberty burns bright in the hearts of hundreds of millions of Patriots. I believe our best days are ahead. However, it may not be as a united republic. Obama has broken our country and appears to be beyond repair. I hope I am wrong.
John Wilson
10:23 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
You are WRONG; but why break your record now?
You are always WRONG!
8:41 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Why is a gun better than a Liberal? When a gun gets fired it doesn't expect 3 years unemployment :)
Daniel S.
8:52 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@ John Wilson: I don't want to sound like a smarty pants, but this is your reply to my question that asked: What is the Intelligent Purpose of Broadcasting Names & Addresses? Your reply: The "Intelligent Purpose" of broadcasting names and addresses of Legal Gun Owners is: a) because it is PUBLIC INFORMATION
Well, we've already been told that more than once and the other nonsense about if you want to send your kids over there to play. There is Zero intelligent reason to make it public knowledge. Whether it really is public knowledge may depend on the state you live in. Me personally, when I address topics, I address them as a National Issue; unless we know it to be a specifically local or state issue. For example in Connecticut: Gun owner information is currently private but there is a bill, if passed, it would reverse a 20-year decision by state lawmakers to keep the personal information confidential. The intelligence is being lost over emotional reaction it seems; never a good thing.
John Wilson
10:03 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Daniel S. -
My comments were for the state if Wisconsin.
"Whether it really is public knowledge may depend on the state you live in. Me personally, when I address topics, I address them as a National Issue; unless we know it to be a specifically local or state issue. For example in Connecticut: Gun owner information is currently private but there is a bill, if passed, it would reverse a 20-year decision by state lawmakers to keep the personal information confidential. The intelligence is being lost over emotional reaction it seems; never a good thing. "
If you have GUNS, your community ought to know, so they may make an informed decision regarding living in a community awash with firearms, insurances companies ought to know, so they may adjust the risk factors, including property values in that area appropriately, certainly law enforcement officials ought to know, at the very least so when they are called for a domestic disturbance, they know what they are facing, and the same holds for fighter fighters and EMTs; the rights of the community should always trump the selfish desires of the anarchists who think all laws are enacted for someone else.
We should all address the well-known fact that a law-abiding gun owner may become a criminal in an instant. Children are not born criminals; they become criminals, mostly before the age of 35.
Society makes laws for one reason and one reason only: to control human behavior.
Brian Dey
8:49 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
John Wilson- So if you are mentally ill, you may be of danger to our society, so the public has a right to know. If are an alcoholic or convicted drug user, yu are a danger to our society, the public has a right to know. Anyone of these may committ a crime within seconds, so the public interest trumps their rights.
Gun owners are not anarchists you fool. The only ones that have thought like that are Stalin, Hitler and Mein Obama. Until you fully enforce the over 2,000 laws that address gun violence, and have mandatory sentencing which you liberals hate, then come to us with new ones. Until then, stop trying to blame everything and everyone else on crimes that in this case, one man committed.
Brian Carlson
8:57 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Lyle, well it was a sweet story WPN told then, wasn't it? Lovely really. I realy cant say i am impressed by all these masked men and women. Smacks of fear.
9:58 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Brian: I have made the mistake of posting using my real name, only to be targeted by opposing viewers. Driving by my home, using their hands and fingers as a gun- going bam...
While you and I may disagree on many things, I am certain neither of us is in fear of the other retaliating. But one has to be aware there are many kooks out there.
Lyle Ruble
10:03 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@Brian Carlson....I get so bored with conspiracy theories. The more people go on the more ridiculous they become. In the past, I have been involved with a number of the organizations that have been named as part of conspiracies. What is humorous is that if you know anything about these organizations, they are so disorganized, under funded and rarely are of a single mind let alone a single purpose. It's like the Democratic Party, they are not of a single purpose and represent any number of interests.
Daniel S.
9:58 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
@ John Wilson: 50 state laws governing a Constitutional Right, how is that a beautiful thing?
John Wilson
10:09 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Daniel S. -
The was meant to be 100% pure sarcasm!
That is what you get when every state and individual thinks they can all do THEIR OWN THING...
Bottom Line
11:51 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Sorry that Brian is caught up in distraction instead of substance.
Lyle claims he is tired conspiracy theories ... theories are part of the media furthering liberal propaganda .... sad that adults are accepting government policy to forward debt on future generations so Lyle and Brian can appreciate benefits paid by our grandchildren .. hardly commendable .. but it is liberal ...
Brian Carlson
8:34 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Bottom l,
You would have to be in your thirties to recall the debt the GREAT CONSERVATIVE FATHER, Ronald Reagan, left our country. You may recall the name George Bush however and remember his gift to future generations. You could google Bill Clintons name and see what order he left the country in, ostensibly one of your Darth Vaders of liberalism. Debt isn't about liberal or conservative and, assuming you are young, by the comment, you might want to read up on the history of debt tied to various administrations and congresses prior to filing it in one of your only two files... Liberal or conservative.
Brian Dey
8:53 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Brian C.- And Obama is leaving us what kind of legacy? I consider the only label for this administration is arrogant fools. This is what you get when you get a one term state legislator, one term Senator. Someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. Didn't help that he was a crack smoking idealogue.
9:48 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Brian Calson I agree. Both parties are to blame for the Debt issue.
What everyone seems to ignore is that Obama has single handedly outspent all previous administrations, adding more Debt than 12 years of Bush 1+2
Debt is a useful tool, but if used wrongly it can hurt you.
When Debt is over 100% of GDP, and there is no economic growth to look forward to; then we are looking at an end to America as we know it.
John Wilson
10:31 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Craig -
We have strayed far afield from GUNS, the topic here; I do understand your penchant for dragging President Obama into every topic though, so I will attempt to enlighten you here.
"What everyone seems to ignore is that Obama has single handedly outspent all previous administrations, adding more Debt than 12 years of Bush 1+2 "
Everyone ignores that because it simply is not TRUE.
Please take the time to peruse the following link, paying special attention to "Table 3: Average change in annual deficit."
It is not what you want to BELIEVE, however, it is FACTUAL…
10:45 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
You can be the "topic police" when:
1) You write your own blog
2) You understand the difference between debt and deficit
3) You can read the charts in your own links which clearly show an increase in spending
4) You actually have something useful to add to the conversation
John Wilson
10:58 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Craig -
Debt is part of the deficit... I know that is news to you... just deal with it!
803,424,990,821 GWB - 8 years
34,326,854,939 GHWB - 4 years
837,751,845,760 Added by Bush 1+2 - 12 years of Republican debauchery...
-343,491,183,091 Subtracted by Obama
Please take an economics 101 class... please...
11:06 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Wilson you still do not understand. What part of DEBT do you not get? Even using your simpleton chart in your link, it is obvious. It is clear from your inability to comprehend that you should never procreate.
I hear they are planning another Castaway movie...you should audition for the part of the ball full of air. Tom Hanks needs a clueless companion.
11:07 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
What part of the $1.2 trillion deficit is the $16.4 trillion debt?
11:35 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Using Wilson's fuzzy numbers:
837,751,845,760 Added by Bush 1+2 - 12 years of Republican debauchery...
-343,491,183,091 Subtracted by Obama (anyone who buys that is an IDIOT)
This means our actual Federal Debt is only $10 Trillion !
I wonder why the debt clock shows $16.3 Trillion????
That pssss sound you hear is the air coming out of Wilson's head.
John Wilson
12:09 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Craig -
It is quite obvious that you desperately need the economics 101 course.
Instead of being snarky... try and understand the difference between intra-government debt and national deficit... there is room for 1Kb left on your hard drive.
12:16 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Wilson: Bush left us with $10 Trillion of debt.
Obama is now at $16 Trillion.
My hard drive works fine, seems you are still using a floppy.
They make pills for that.
John Wilson
12:58 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Craig -
We know you are economically challenged; now we know that you are mathematically challenged as well...
IF you look closely, you will find that the numbers I presented to you are in BILLIONS… NOT TRILLIONS, as you so incorrectly characterized them.
Further, these figures represent intra-government debt, not the national deficit.
I understand this is difficult for you, as it does go a bit further than the count of your fingers and toes…
1:34 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Wilson: You chastise me for going off topic by changing guns to Federal debt.
Then you change debt to deficit, throw in some BS and stir the pot to make everything crystal clear. Changing the subject matter every time you are cornered with facts.
Get off your high horse Wilson, you have been challenged repeatedly and proven wrong by many people (myself, JRH, etc).
To put it mildly, you're a complete horses ass.
I have had bowel movements with more brains that you have.
John Wilson
1:48 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Craig -
You must be a Christian... because you are so NICE. [Fourteen Century definition of NICE.]
I'm sorry YOU changed the topic on this blog.
I'm sorry YOU do not understand basic economics 101.
I'm sorry YOU cannot differential between debt and deficit.
I'm sorry YOU do not comprehend the difference between a BILLION and a TRILLION.
I'm sorry YOU are mathematically challenged.
Finally, I'm sorry YOU, like Bush, are SPECIAL…
2:38 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Wilson don't be sorry. Flush yourself - twice,
it's a long ride to the treatment plant at MMSD.
The Anti-Alinsky
5:47 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
John Wilson wrote: "Craig –Debt is part of the deficit... I know that is news to you... just deal with it!
803,424,990,821 GWB - 8 years
34,326,854,939 GHWB - 4 years
837,751,845,760 Added by Bush 1+2 - 12 years of Republican debauchery...
-343,491,183,091 Subtracted by Obama"
John, that made no sense at all, at least not when you look at the facts. Using Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Year Spending Surplus or Deficit (–)
2008 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 -1,293,489
2011 3,603,061 -1,299,595
2012 3,795,547 -1,326,948 (estimate)
So the last year under Bush 43 is less that a third of the first year of Obama.
Time to go back to sixth grade math class Johnny.
John Wilson
6:47 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky –
It is always NICE to see one lost soul attempt to come to the aid of anther lost soul…
First, you are entirely in the wrong area of finance; you are in the OMB.
I know you never reference prior links where relevant information came from for the current discussion, however, make an exception, so at least your apples & oranges cake looks at the data I referenced, which is intra-government debt.
WARNING: these figures are in BILLIONS not TRILLIONS; Craig doesn't know the difference, and I doubt if you do either, hence I am pointing that out… you're welcome!
Please take the time to peruse the following link, paying special attention to "Table 3: Average change in annual deficit."
When you are done eating your apple & orange cake, please let us talk about the "original data that I supplied"… NOT something from the OMB that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC!
Brian Carlson
10:18 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Agreed Craig that leadership on both sides have created or permitted a vey precarious situation.
10:30 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
To say the least.
I have often wondered if the spending addiction is part of a master plan. Ever since Carter, it seems each President spent more than the previous one.
Does the Presidency have a secret agenda?
Is it to destroy the World's currencies in order to move toward a single currency system?
Bob McBride
10:40 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
I don't know why anyone would be shocked at the run on guns and ammo. Look what happened when Hostess announced its pending (at the time) shutdown.
Truly, Obama and the Dems might be on to something here. Maybe they need to start grumbling about limiting the size of flat screen TVs to 23" or limiting each household to one car purchase every 6 years or making it illegal to own anything made in America or some such.
11:10 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Obama does not want the American people spending, that's his job.
11:08 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
We now have two more powerful folks fighting the NRA! I am all for that.
RightWingWatch MA @RWwatchMA 8m
Fighting gun violence by gun-owners Gabby Giffords & Mark Kelly ow.ly/gDAK0 #mapoli #p2 #wiunion #ctl
An ideological fringe
....Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.
As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. ...
... we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home. What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.
We saw from the NRA leadership's defiant and unsympathetic response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre that winning even the most common-sense reforms will require a fight.....
John Wilson
11:28 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
morninmist -
Watch your typical [Alex Jones] "They're trying to take our guns away!"
Hello, Bellevue!
Would you ever actually listen to this person?
12:18 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Yes, John--a straightjacket is in store for Jones.
Denise Mohr @serenepece 6m
Want to see a "they're coming for our guns" dude totally lose his sh*t on @piersmorgan? WATCH: bit.ly/XJ9xNf via @MoveOn
Brian Carlson
11:20 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
I love this part of that quote...."What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence. We saw from the NRA leadership's defiant and unsympathetic response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre that winning even the most common-sense reforms will require a fight....."
Bob McBride
11:25 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Actually the most common sense response to the shootings in Newtown would be to fortify the target, rather than attempting limit the number of needles in the haystack. As we've seen, even the mention of such actually increases their presence. In that sense, the NRA suggestion, while potentially missing the mark in terms of the methodology, is actually a lot closer to focusing on the most effective way of eliminating the threat. Only eliminating or severely hampering access to targets will protect them.
11:22 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The NRA has graciously offered , for free, to have many of its members stand guard at every government school in the nation. Of course, the lily livered cowards who enjoy being victims, refused.
John Wilson
11:36 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
NewNRAMember –
That is a very creative idea…
Let us see now, the craziest of the crazies standing guard at all government schools.
[Charles Manson would do it for free too…]
Yeah, well, what could possibly go wrong there?
1:02 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Only crazy one is folks like you Mr. WIlson. But it is okay, we protect ninnies like you too.
11:26 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
I saw parts of an interview done with Jones---He was a raving maniac and certaining did his side no good.--which is lovely for those with common sense.
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 8m
Exclusive: Piers Morgan talks about last night's Alex Jones interview with POLITICO politico.com/blogs/media/20… via @politico
11:28 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Here is Morgan on the interview:
CNN host Piers Morgan just called to discuss his interview last night with Alex Jones, the conservative radio host and gun advocate who went on a tirade against Morgan, gun control legislation, and a litany of government conspiracies.
"He was the best advertisement for gun control you could wish for," Morgan told POLITICO.
"That kind of vitriol, hatred, and zealotry is really quite scary. I didn't feel threatened by him, but I'm concerned that someone like him has that level of influence," Morgan said. "There's got to be a level of discourse that can rise above what happened last night. It was undignified, unedifying."
In what Morgan described as a "big, long rant," Jones -- the man who started the White House petition to deport Morgan -- shouted questions about gun control legislation, gave premonitions of a 1776-like rebellion, and pronounced conspiracy theories -- including his belief that 9/11 was an inside job -- while Morgan tried calmly and in vain to conduct a civil interview.
John Wilson
12:47 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Patriot -
I'm sorry for breaking into your delusion, however, Alex is a very appropriate representative for you GUN NUTS; he is stark raving mad, totally out of control, and only passionate about his own passion...
I would really want him standing guard on my children's school…
11:37 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Morgan is a peice of crap period!!!! Mr Jones did not agree to appear on his show to be controlled by an individual who is not an American, who voices his ideology with regards to stomping on our 2nd amendment. He is someone who needs to leave and go back to his country that has bans on firearms if its so great!! Yes Alex did get a little excited but he is a man who is passionate about this Country and like many more of us, sees it being torn apart from the inside. Very clever social engineering, to make it look like its smoke & mirrors when in fact it is being driven by the elitists foriegn bankers. Obama is the best machine to push that agenda forward. WAY TO GO ALEX!!! Finally someone to get in their face and call a spade a spade
12:20 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Jones was a raving maniac last night.
Denise Mohr @serenepece 6m
Want to see a "they're coming for our guns" dude totally lose his sh*t on @piersmorgan? WATCH: bit.ly/XJ9xNf via @MoveOn
1:17 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Because he is passionate about his stance on the Constitution? Then I guess were all mad well except the progressives. They are calm, non violent people. Hahahahaha. Wilson I will pray for you bro
1:58 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
How crazy was he compared to the throngs of anti-Walker drum beaters in the capitol last year?
Brian Carlson
5:18 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
CD, the protests at the State Capital as well as the Antiwar protests in Chicago at the recent NATO summit were both fantastic examples of one of the only hopes for democracy or freedom: lawful dissent.
John Wilson
7:10 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Brian Carlson -
The Constitution gives this powerful RIGHT to WE THE PEOPLE, and all the situations you mentioned were appropriate for its use; I could not agree with you more!
Just be aware that the TAP (Take Away Party) aka Republican Party, is constantly creating more and further away "buffer zones for protesters" so in the not too distant future, you will have to hold your protest against Walker or anyone, from the middle of lake Michigan.
They tried the same thing with same day voter registration, changing voting times, places and restricting the number of days to vote.
You will not find a more devious and unethical group, anywhere…
9:25 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Yes Brian, but you seem to have missed my point.
Why is it that the 'lawful dissent' that we witnessed last year (drums banging, shouting, death threats, forcing open windows, etc.) gets no criticism at all from the left buy the guy expressing his version of 'lawful dissent' on a talk show gets labeled as a 'raving maniac'?
2:39 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Patriot; that would be impossible as they are one in the same. ;)
2:11 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Good news. More folks have stopped drinking the RW hate Kool-Aid.
Fox News' Hannity's Post-Election Ratings Plummet
Right-wing Fox News host Sean Hannity has seen his ratings collapse in the wake of the 2012 election, suggesting that there may be some consequences for terrible punditry after all.
The New York Daily News reports that Hannity has lost roughly half of his audience since Election Day, according to Nielsen ratings. Among viewers between 25 and 54 years old — the most lucrative demographic for advertisers — Hannity's losses were even greater.
There's no way of telling exactly why viewers are fleeing Hannity's show, but the most likely explanation for his ratings plunge is his outrageously inaccurate analysis of the 2012 presidential election. Many conservative pundits wrongly predicted that Mitt Romney would win the election, but few were as vehement as Hannity, whose show seemed to take place in an alternate right-wing reality.
Hannity's more reality-based competitors in the 9pm timeslot have not suffered the same ratings decline. ....Maddow has hung on to most of her audience, and CNN's Anderson Cooper has lost "almost none" of his viewers post-election. ....Maddow has been beating him in the ratings among the crucial 25-54 demographic.
2:25 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
@Progress2day Tea Party Hits Record Level Of Unpopularity In Public Opinion Poll huff.to/13edKId
The Anti-Alinsky
11:53 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Interesting morn. But if you look at the actual ratings numbers, last week Hannity still had twice as many viewers as Rachel Maddow.
And if you go back prior to October of 2012, you'll see his ratings are holding about the same. Basically, Hannity had a pre-election spike that has settled back to his normal viewership.
2:41 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
And Scott Walker is our Governor and repubs have control of both houses. What a way to start out what is going to be a fabulous year
John Wilson
8:02 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
vocal local 1 –
I know our schools are not safe; our malls are not safe, our football, baseball stadiums, offices and almost everywhere large groups of people meet are not safe. With America awash with guns, it is simply no wonder that most of the population is not safe.
I just want to ask one little question: WHAT KIND OF AMERICA DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN?
Do we really want hardened buildings that require 12 forms of ID and checks to gain entry into, an armed guard at every door and in every room, teachers with AR-15s, video and weaponized drones above every building?
Well, I do not!
We need to recognize – in spite of all the PC rhetoric – that we are, at heart, a course, egomaniacal and extremely violent culture, with only a thin veneer of civilization covering that.
On top of that underlying dynamic, we have a society that has created a religious cult out of the 2nd Amendment – never mind the other 26 – and that allows us to bring final resolution to any perceived lack of respect, threat or any conflict. There is no longer any need to learn conflict resolution skills, just grab for your gun and blow that potential problem away! Problem solved!
No, that is not the way I choose to go…
IF you put armed teachers or guards in my children's school, I will take them out and put them in another school or home school them…
Daniel S.
8:46 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Actually, it's very safe just about anywhere you go except maybe the wrong neighborhood during night. Based on what most anti-gun folk say; what are the odds you are going to ever need to pull out your weapon . . . the answer, next to zero. So how in the heck could it be so dangerous out there, like so many want to mislead us to believe?
vocal local 1
3:20 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
John Wilson, Sorry to be the bearer of scary news in concrete terms but there isn't any protective guard at your children's school. Wisconsin schools are just as unsafe as ever. Congress didn't even bite on NRA's recommendation to hire armed guards for every school in the nation. WHY NOT? Because there isn't any funding. It's more important for Washington to continue to finance and protect their own and American Business investments in the Middle East, Oil and Heroin than protect the children of the over-populated insignificant masses. John, I'm not being a smart ass, I just want you to think, to recognize that our schools are not safe. Were one of the states with more than one mass shooting. There will probably be more as govt. officials hop on the band wagon on gun control rather than address the social issues leading up to the killings.
NObama 2012
8:22 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Did Morninmist finally get released from Briarcliff?
9:40 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Mr Wilson and all you progressive Liberals who put so much faith into your leader Mr Obama. Bottom line they are nazi communist thugs who are pushing their agenda thru at what ever the cost. Here is something very strange relating to the Sandy Hook Shooting. Look they want us DISARMED AT ALL COSTS!!!!
Here is a google link to a website for donations to the sandy hook victims. Nothing wrong with that right? WRONG!!!!!
The problem lies with the URL Date on which the site was created. Dont take my word do your own research. But the URL for the Sandy Hook United Way site was created on DEC 11th. Hmmmmmm how is that when the shooting took place on DEC 14th? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Sandy Hook School Support Fund - United Way of Western ...
Dec 11, 2012 - United Way extends our most sincere condolences and prayers to all those families affected by the devastating events in Newtown/Sandy Hook, Connecticut.
Go to google type sandy hook united way
Under the bar that starts with web its default is anytime click on that and do a custom search selecting Dec 11. The top of the page will show the united way site that was created on dec 11. 3 days before this tragedy took place. Propaganda people, nazi germany right in your face. It appears that the shooting was staged as a way to pursue gun control
Brian Carlson
9:40 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
CD...did you "witness" these demonstrations? I was at both. They were remarkable in both cases for the number of people present and the peacefulness of the actions. It was buoyant...of course,passionate, but in both cases marchers were peaceful and the police did well too.. In any crowds of this number there are going to be some ridiculous people looking for conflict. They did not represent the movements in either case. Were your there? I don't know who said your guy was a maniac but that is no more than a personal opinion similar to the one you voiced about the protesters....
3:11 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Not sure why you think he's "my guy", but you are correct in that it was no more than a personal opinion. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of stating such an opinion...
9:42 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
People we are being lied too!!! We are being setup!! WAKE up America
9:49 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Whats bizarre is if you click on that link it takes you to the very same united way page as if you did not define the search criteria. If you just do a simple sandy hook united way search and click on that link its the very same page. Yet it appears it was created prior to the event ready for launch at a moments notice.
10:01 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Note the url date of the link at the top of the page. Also a fund raising site that appears to have been created 1 day prior to the tragedy!!!!
Brian Carlson
11:12 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Pat... You have introduced whole new level to the conversation. The Federal Govt slaughtered twenty first graders so they can ban weapons. let's have a show of hands from the right here! How many of you on this blog think Pat makes sense?
11:23 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
I can't accept that this was a conspiracy for the 'greater good' from some leftist or anti gun agenda.
I think a likely explanation is: The volunteer United Way worker entered the wrong date, or the PC (s)he was using had the wrong date stamp. Changing the date is simple enough to do on your own pc, I assume any files created would be date stamped improperly as well.
Any IT experts care to weigh in?
11:25 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Nothing against Patriot, it just doesn't hold water.
Not in my opinion.
Johnny Blade
12:32 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Really .. so what was fast and furious about?
How many foreign childern has died by drone attacks .. and you got the freakin nerve to pull double think BS on us
How did building 7 fall on 9/11 .. oh yeah Osama used a cell phone from his hideout to coordinate 19 hijackers who could barely fly .. they hijacked 4 commercial airlines flew around for hours evading the best militarys fight control grid to finally fly the planes into the two towers and the pentagon ... I will tell you what ##$%^%^ .. Do you belive that story .. does that make sense
2:12 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Firearms are a great investment, almost as good as gold. Can't lose money as long as the knee jerk responders to every isolated tragedy keep the story going. Pharmaceuticals are right up there too to keep everyone on their meds for this or that malady, despite their warnings that you may do something dangerous or kill yourself indulging in their product. They have lots of lawyers to cover their collective behinds. Investors don't care about the investment, they only care if it returns a profit.
vocal local 1
3:35 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Add Christie's comment "increase accessibility to mental health drugs".
4:23 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
@Craig-HEy man Im not saying thats what happened. As I really dont understand html writing or website creation stuff. I just thought it strange that a website dated 11Dec was or appears to have been created 3 days prior. Hoping to get an expert to help me to understand thats all
9:35 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
No problem Patriot.
We need a computer geek to weigh in though, I am not even close.
To be honest, I can't fathom anyone planning this that isn't insane.
9:52 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
@Craig-I totally agree. I guess there is a part of me that questions the validity of the entire scene. I mean we are being fed by the media after all. Thats all I am saying. Not sure if you recall the interview with the young girls father? He was being filmed as he entered the press conference not realizing he was on camera and he seemed so like well an actor. He asked are we ready for this then it seemed he had to get into a frame of mind to conduct the press conference. I know thats way out there but damn I do not trust these people.
10:03 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Media manipulation. It was part of the Travon Martin shooting case.
We were manipulated not only by partial stories but were shown a picture of an 11 year old boy- not the 17 year old he was.
How many months past before we saw the bloodied face of Zimmerman?
11:32 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Very good news!
The NRA's image has taken a hit with both Republicans (71% to 66%) and Democrats (29% to 22%) over the last 3 weeks: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/i…
12:47 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
@SpudLovr Images of NRA, Congressional Republicans on the decline bit.ly/Xknb5z #wipolitics #wiunion #p2
12:59 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
.@GovWalker has a few options when discussing his 250K jobs fail. Lie. Divert. Elide. None of them involve honesty. Or jobs. #jobsfail
2:02 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Jan 19th is national gun appreciation day. We are having a march to the state capitol to show support of our 2nd amendment. Asking those of you who support the constitution to join us. It is time we make a stand so our voices will be heard
2:45 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Jan. 19th, has my support. Morningmist, move on you are a pathetic loser. Scott Walker still loves you though.
The Anti-Alinsky
5:47 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
(I posted this yesterday, my apologies if it shows up twice)
Oh Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. Why are you bringing up intra-government debt? That's money we've stolen, excuse me, borrowed from Social Security and other dedicated funds that will need to be paid back if we want to commit to the promised we made to, well, everybody.
OK, now lets address your "Table 3: Average change in annual deficit.". I addressed this with Bernie Forand several times. Dr. Bloch makes the same incorrect conclusions that Bernie and Politifact made. Here's the simple question, how do you go from 9.98 TRILLION to 16.35 TRILLION (a 39% increase) without massive record setting debt.
Dr. Bloch makes his mistake by not giving Barack Hussein Obama credit for his first year in office. True, the first year of a presidency is credited to the outgoing president, but 2009 was an anomalous year. President Bush submitted a $3.107 trillion budget which would have generated a 407 billion dollar deficit. BUUUUUT, thanks to Democrats ignoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac warnings, the housing bubble burst. As a result, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (which B.O. vote for) was passed. Unfortunately, the housing crisis led to a recession and B.O. and the Democratic Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (which Bush 43 had NOTHING to do with). Both of these acts, plus revenues were lower than expected, that 407 billion dollars jumped to 1.41 trillion.
The Anti-Alinsky
5:47 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
But let's follow tradition and credit Bush 43 with ALL of the 2009 defecit. How do you explain the next three years? Let me give you an example. One year you decide to buy a new car, for cash. You buy one from the dealer for $40,000 and are set for the next ten years. Your spending went up $40,000 for that one year. The next year you spend $30,000 more than you did two years earlier, yet somehow convince yourself that your spending went down. Yes, in one regard you did, but only because you moved the baseline to suit your needs.
Johnny Wilson wrote: "First, you are entirely in the wrong area of finance; you are in the OMB."
I used the OMB data since Dr. Bloch manipulated the data to a point that it suited his agenda. I started with fresh data from a reliable source. The director of the OMB is a cabinet level position and this agency isn't realiable, none of them are!!!
John Wilson
3:01 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky –
Intra-government debt is part of the deficit. My original post to you & Craig is valid and stands.
I hope this clarifies just how far you two are out of the ballpark here – not to mention way off blog topic – you folks are, if it does not, then you two can just dance your lives away, because I cannot help any further…
"OMB is the president's representative when it comes to spending and tax revenue estimates. Reports issued by the OMB present the White House's own take on policy and spending, usually countering or complementing those of the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, and the Joint Committee on Taxation."
What is the difference between the debt and the deficit?
"The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget.
You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses…"
3:23 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Wilson: No one cares about your bullshit explanations. Intra-government debt is just moneys borrowed from Social Security or Medicare, it is still money that is owed to someone due to the spending addiction Government has.
You continue to claim we know nothing about debt or deficit, but it is YOU who is out of touch with reality. I have spent my career on finance, I know treasuries and the ramifications of Government spending sprees far better than you do.
You keep claiming to hit a home run but you are swinging at the wrong pitches.
Find someone with a ball pump and needle, your head is full of hot air.
Eat some kraut, beans, and broccoli- maybe you can blow that fat head out of your ass; it's no wonder you talk shit.
The Anti-Alinsky
3:56 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Correction Johnny, WE have strayed from the "way off blog topic". But as a lawyer/friend of mine says, "I'm not the one who opened this line of discussion".
In your original post, concerning the fact that B.O. has accumulated more debt that Bush 43 in half the time, you wrote: "Everyone ignores that because it simply is not TRUE...It is not what you want to BELIEVE, however, it is FACTUAL"
I simply pointed out where Dr. Stephen Bloch erred. And in reality, he was asserting a different point. He was arguing that GROWTH in the deficit had decreased under B.O. My point was that he used the anomalous year of 2009 as a baseline, a year that saw the deficit more than double.
But I will rephrase the question, DEBT increased by $4.2 trillion under eight years of Bush 43, and $4.8 trillion under four years of B.O. So, how do you accumulate more debt in half the time yet still claim the deficit has gone down?
Maybe I need to explain debt and deficit to YOU. Your cut and paste definition does not convey any understanding of the difference. The deficit is the lack of funds needed to run the governments commitments for the year. Debt is they money they borrow to meet those commitments. Quite simply, deficit leads to debt.
I've explained enough. I await your inevitable silly response which will hopefully be the last word on the subject.
12:03 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Think the numbskull got it?
Silence is golden huh Anti-Alinsky?
The Anti-Alinsky
10:44 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
No, I am sorry sorry to say I don't think he got it. And I have no doubt that he will respond with some convoluted responds that will ignore the simple fact that we have accumulated more debt under B.O. (so far) than under Bush 43.
I do need to make one correction. The $4.8 trillion figure is for the last THREE years of B.O.'s administration. I didn't use the first year since the left will claim that was Bush's budget. Consider though that only $400 billion of that was Bush's budgetary deficit, the rest was accumulated by borrowing for TARP and ARRA. We have actually accumulated $6.3 trillion in debt over the last four years.
It makes me wonder how we will do in 2013.
John Wilson
1:56 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Craig -
Hey, I've been in "FINANCE all my life." Dah... I really don't know the difference between a Billion and a Trillion though...
Think about it, it will probably be the only thought you will have for years...
The Anti-Alinsky
3:10 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
I have no doubt that Craig knows the difference between a billion and a trillion. The question is, out side of the cut and paste definitions you use, do you?
It's a sure thing that B.O. doesn't.
vocal local 1
5:35 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
You guys digress. If I could afford the purchase I'd buy an assault rifle and a 9mm pistol, a 30/30 and a semi automatic 22 rifle capable of shooting long, short and rifle bullets. And heres my rationale for desire to purchase. "If", the president issues a presidential executive order banning guns the amounts of other assault will rise. Considering I'm a small woman more apt to face a violent aggressive male that statistics on violent crime prove are more apt to attack me with a blunt trauma instrument I'd need an equalizer. A larger hammer or bat isn't going to do it for me. My gun shooting skills are too low to even consider shooting for the defense of others in a crowded public situation and I don't like CC. I want to know who is carrying a weapon in any public situation or on my property. In my home with a perp breaking down my door, I would and could fire. I wouldn't want to but self preservation rules most of us that are psychologically healthy and not on mental health drugs. Now, guns and kids and mental health. It's simply not in anyone's best interest to allow access. I don't care how secure your guns maybe our kids know more about us and our affairs than we would like to admit or even imagine. I'd recommend storage of weapons out of the home. RECOMMEND, not demand. I'd also purchase a pellet gun to kill the beautiful but nasty Blue Jays and tree rats that get into my shed and make "BIG" messes. Yea, I can trap but no place to release.
10:16 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Its time for those who hold the Constitution dear to theirs hearts to stand up and be heard
12:23 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
davidfrum @davidfrum 5h
Bill Clinton: half of all mass casualty shootings in US history have occurred since assault ban expired in 2005 thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/…
12:33 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Barak Obama and Bill Clinton are talking in the rose garden. Obama asks Bill, "How is Hillary's head?"
Bill replies, "Well she's no Monica Lewinsky...."
12:58 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Craig- Hahahaha, thats some funny stuff. Did you know Bill Clinton was just named father of the year by the National Fathers Day Council? Thats even funnier !!!!
1:21 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
KHD: I heard that about Bill. Too funny. Almost as silly as Obama getting a Nobel Prize.
jeff jandl
1:16 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
everyone of the shooters we're on mental meds. now where's a lawsuit when you need one????
vocal local 1
6:30 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
No, every one of the shooters were not on mental meds and didn't have any history of medical or street drug use. I believe the official number was 60 some percent of mass shooters were on mental health drugs.
1:17 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Heres one. Anti- gun Democratic Senator shoots intruder. http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html?article=10691354
John Wilson
8:33 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Vivent longtemps la court suprême!
Justice Scalia was very clear when writing the majority opinion in Heller. Laws prohibiting assault weapons (and by association clip size laws and similar) do NOT infringe upon the 2nd Amendment right to own a hunting weapon or to keep a handgun/shotgun in the home. This is settled law, by a decision of the majority of the US Supreme Court, with the majority opinion written by the most conservative, strict interpretationist member of that court.
Here is the relevant clause in the decision, as written by Scalia:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
The decision goes on to say that, military style weapons are also NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Sorry, kids, but if you've swallowed the NRA line that background checks on all sales ("imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms") are against the 2nd Amendment, then you are wrong and it was the Supreme Court that said so.
Brian Carlson
9:19 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
John W....aside from polls that indicate a majority of Americans want to see stricter gun control laws, this is a reference is a heartening and formidable ruling that the pro stasis folks are going to have to deal with. Do you have a direct link to that quote from Scalia or to the whole ruling? Thanks.
John Wilson
1:24 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Brian Carlson -
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 554 U.S. v HELLER (2008)
[I do hope you like legalese…]
"Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia (D) law. The law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore, all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business."
"The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time."
Scalia's Majority decision and Breyer's Minority dissenting opinion can be accessed with the italicized link in the first paragraph of the article – link below.
1:34 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Bottom line WILSON your an idiot period!!!! Take your progressive liberal BS and move to New York, California or better yet Detroit or downtown Chicago!! Considering Detroit has been run by your kind for some time now and they seem to be doing very well!!!
John Wilson
5:15 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Brian Carlson -
You are very welcome; I am always happy to assist a rational and thinking person discover the truth.
Additionally, all quotes, excepted from any post or article here or on any blog that I post on are always clearly identified by proper quotation marks, and, if I deem them sufficiently noteworthy or esoteric, they are referenced by an appropriate URL. [The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 554 U.S. v HELLER (2008) is not particularily noteworthy or esoteric and can be found easily, along with Scalia's quote(s).]
Furthermore, I would challenge anyone to prove that I have not done so, and cite the reference(s). [IF you cannot debate the FACTS, then attack and attempt to impugn the messenger.]
I will wait for your never-to-be-found proof...
What is really at issue here is the inane practice of most of the NEOCONS who post on the Patch to consistently place quotation marks around all of THEIR OWN PERSONAL COMMENTS…as if anything they said could possibly rise to the level that someone would want to repeat their nonsensical opinions…
Something of further interest for my low forehead friends from that unimpeachable TAP/GOP [Take-Away-Party] headquarters [aka Faux News].
vocal local 1
4:12 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Wasn't it the supreme court that also said developers could with the assistance of cities forcefully take our homes under Eminent Domain for the expressed purpose of redevelopment and future revenues to be rendered to a municipality? Didn't the court also advise review of the decision in a few years? Justice Scalia's decision is just that a decision that is subject to review upon demand.
John Wilson
1:36 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
vocal local 1 –
Supreme Court Decisions – this one 5-4 – have NEVER been reviewable upon DEMAND nor shall they ever be.
[On a few occassions the Supreme Court has written into a decision that they rendered at the time, that they MAY review it in a few years or some other time frame. This, however, does not mean that they HAVE to review it or that anyone can DEMAND that they review it, and then they must comply... the SUPREMES have always had the ultimate choice to determine which case(s) they will or will not hear.]
It might say that in your Bible; however, this is the real world…
vocal local 1
4:12 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
John, are you sure Supreme Court decisions are not reviewable upon demand? What about Roe -V- Wade? I realize it hasn't been reviewed but some really clamor for review. I realize the Supreme Court decides which issues, cases are heard, the discretionary power of Supreme Courts as a whole.
John Wilson
12:35 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Vocal local 1 -
Yes, I am sure… and, again, we are way off topic; out of courtesy, I will answer your question and play your game.
I suspect you have answered your own question in your post.
"I realize it hasn't been reviewed but some really clamor for review. I realize the Supreme Court decides which issues, cases are heard, the discretionary power of Supreme Courts as a whole."
There are no "Supreme Courts [Plural]… there is only the Supreme Court… it is the final arbiter of all law governing this Republic.
IF you want to pragmatically test my statement, write to the SC and tell them that YOU demand that they revisit the Roe v Wade decision, immediately. Please cc me at firstname.lastname@example.com
This month is the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade.
While TAP (R) governors and their (R) dominated legislatures may attempt to erect barriers for people attempting to access [with the assistance of ALEX] to contraception, clinics and abortion – most of these barriers will be ruled unconstitutional upon appeal – thus having no practical or long lasting effect upon the law codified by the Supreme Court.
Brian Carlson
3:15 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
No one speaks to the content of your "cut and paste," on this one John. The boys resort to their normal tactics... call you an idiot, stand amazed at the arrogance of someone who links a Supreme Court decision, but, relative to the decision... Are so far speechless. Nice cut and paste on this one John.
The Anti-Alinsky
4:15 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Brian wrote: "The boys…stand amazed at the arrogance of someone who links a Supreme Court decision, but, relative to the decision... Are so far speechless."
Actually Brian, I WAS amazed. DC vs. Heller affirmed the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, so I was confused why he would reference this case. It has taken a couple days of study and review to see what he was talking about.
This is a great example of someone trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The majority opinion did indeed rule REASONABLE restrictions were legal. Now it is up to ALL OF US, not just Liberals, to decide what is reasonable AND WHY. We have spent years arguing about what is reasonable, and I personally think we have crossed that line as it is.
Johnny also like to manipulate sources for his own purposes. Johnny quoted a portion of the decision: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…" Which strongly implied restriction on usage only applied to the second amendment.
What he left out was the previous sentence "LIKE MOST RIGHTS, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." (emphasis added).
BTW-Cut and paste is proper and OK as long as you give credit to the source. Johnny seems to have a bad habit of writing other's dufundities without citing sources or even using quotations.
John Wilson
3:53 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky –
Wrong again, and you are parsing your convoluted logic beyond all comprehension; it would be far more intellectual honest for you to admit you are wrong, and that you disagree with the SC and its interpretation.
Further, it is well established in law that all RIGHTS carry RESPONSIBILITIES.
Again, WE THE PEOPLE live under the Constitution and the LAWS derived from the interpretation of that Constitution by our Supreme Court. [Spirit is a non-issue] The Supremes may use many different sources to interpret the Constitution – the Federalist Papers is hardly one of them. Almost without exception, the court uses prior precedents and the clear intent of those precedents – in the SC rulings – to interpret and codify law.
YOU may read the 2nd Amendment anyway you want; the Heller Decision by the SC in 2008 - Scalia wrote the majority opinion – disagrees with YOU and that is the LAW!
I am citing the LAW… you are citing YOUR OPINION and how you FEEL things SHOULD BE.
YOU are entitled to your OPINION… It is not the LAW…
Brian Carlson
5:20 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Wasn't the 2nd Amendment perfectly clear without Scalia clarifying it AA? Yes it's up to all of us... But we NEED restrictions...they are not infringements on our constitutional rights per se....
John Wilson
6:49 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Brian Carlson -
You would probably be shocked at the number of people in this country who do not have a clue about what the 2nd Amendment is, that we have (3) branches of government and what they are responsible for doing... that is a large part of what is wrong with this country: no sense of our history, no knowledge regarding government, and no motivation to get involved... that's why they are lead around like baby sheep. [Some have a somewhat valid reason: they are working 3-jobs just to keep food on the table and clothing on their children's backs...
Brian Carlson
7:03 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
JW... I think the 2nd A is not clear... And am glad it was clarified to a point. The people who swear by it as is, can't explain the point about a militia....nor why that is tied to the rest of the sentence as it is....in terms of this century. It needs sorting out... I think. That's mainly what I was saying. Relative to your point, I think many people do not know that dissent is critical (no pun intended) to any free society or government. Once all dissent is characterized as "anti-American," freedom has departed. The founders were dissenters.
The Anti-Alinsky
8:56 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Brian, the 2nd amendment seems fairly clear to me:
The right (a fundamental entitlement)
of the people (all of us)
to keep (possess)
and bear (carry)
arms (weapons, including fireARMS)
shall not be infringed(to encroach upon)
Seems really simple to me. The average person can posses whatever weapons they want. However, SCOTUS has ruled SOME REASONABLE restriction can be put in place, such as a cooling off period, or making sure the owner is mentally sound.
It does not mean that this RIGHT should be taken away from all us because one person did something stupid.
The Anti-Alinsky
9:02 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
John Wilson wrote: "You would probably be shocked at the number of people in this country who do not have a clue about what the 2nd Amendment is, that we have (3) branches of government and what they are responsible for doing..."
Amazingly, this is coming from a self-admitted Liberal. The left always jumps for joy everytime a Liberal judge legislates from the bench, or when B.O. appoints a new Czar without Senate approval, or writes an executive order that flaunts the role of Congress.
John Wilson
11:14 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky -
The salient point(s) of my post - at least 700 meters above your comprehension – was that Americans, in general, are grossly ignorant about how their government works, and all too many of them are trapped in poverty, having to work (3) jobs simply to exist; therefore they do not have the time to become educated about their role as a citizen and how government works, much less free up the time to become involved.
You decided this was a great opportunity – off point – to attack President Obama, Liberals in general and activist judges… typical party "talking points" when a TAP member really has nothing of note to add to the discussion.
You lonely boys and your self-destructing political party are really becoming a very sad lot…
The Anti-Alinsky
11:12 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Johnny wrote: "The salient point(s) of my post - at least 700 meters above your comprehension – was that Americans, in general, are grossly ignorant about how their government works, and all too many of them are trapped in poverty, having to work (3) jobs simply to exist; therefore they do not have the time to become educated about their role as a citizen and how government works, much less free up the time to become involved."
700 meters above my comprehension!!!
You are just an amazing genius!!!
Let's get down to reality Johnny. I learned the basics of our government in school. A public school. The same type of public school all of us are entitled to by law. There is not an adult citizen that has not had the opportunity to learn it. In fact, in the circles I run in, family, friends, work... there is not one that doesn't know how the government is supposed to operate. If you know someone that doesn't have this basic comprehension, you may want to ask them why. Ask them why they didn't use the opportunity as a youth to learn that in school.
We give EVERYONE the opportunity to a free, quality education, if they don't take advantage of that, you can't use that as an excuse.
John Wilson
2:09 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky -
In America – a country made up of immigrants – your utopian ideal regarding EVERYONE having the OPPORTUNITY to a free, quality education simply falls on its face.
The inconvenient truth is that equal opportunity to a free, quality education in America simply does not exist, except for the white middle class.
Your alleged grasp on "reality" is tenuous at best. It also fairly clearly speaks of a person who possesses precious little real life learning experiences, the hubris and intolerance of youth; someone whose core knowledge base comes from books, ideology and dogmatism.
Furthermore, what is taught in HS's across America regarding how the government is supposed to operate is just an utopian ideal – similar to yours – and bears no relationship to how, in reality, our government actually operates.
Special interest groups control our government; the folks with the most money, political influence and power tell Congress what laws to create, what laws they are against, what loopholes they want, when and where they want them enacted… often, through ALEX and nefarious lobbyists, these folks actually write the legislation.
Additionally, almost all of the legislation that passes into law is not even read, much less comprehended, by your representative; that mundane and important task is relegated to legislative aides, who may or may not possess a functional IQ.
Were you taught that in your basics of government in school?
The Anti-Alinsky
7:42 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
More answers to Johnny's nonsense:
"The inconvenient truth is that equal opportunity to a free, quality education in America simply does not exist, except for the white middle class."
It's not for a lack of trying. We dump more money into Milwaukee and we get the fourth worst results in the country. The problem isn't just with the district, it lies with the culture within many of the communities that lie within MPS.
"Furthermore, what is taught in HS's ...is just an utopian ideal – similar to yours – and bears no relationship to how, in reality, our government actually operates."
The sad part is you are right on that one. When you have a Senate that has failed to deliver a budget for three straight years, a President that bypasses congress with unconfirmed Czars and executive orders, and leaders like Harry Reid that refuse to bring bills up for a vote, our Constitutional based freedoms are in big trouble.
"Special interest groups control our government; the folks with the most money, political influence and power tell Congress what laws to create.."
Too true there, groups like NEA, AFL-CIO and other "nefarious" groups.
"Additionally, almost all of the legislation that passes into law is not even read..."
Kind of hard to read things like the Affordable Care Act when it is still being edited while voted on.
You have a lot of good points. Unfortunately your Democratic buddies are the ones that are the biggest offenders!!!
The Anti-Alinsky
8:06 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Johnny also wrote:
"Your alleged grasp on "reality" is tenuous at best. It also fairly clearly speaks of a person who possesses precious little real life learning experiences, the hubris and intolerance of youth; someone whose core knowledge base comes from books, ideology and dogmatism."
Sorry Johnny, I'm alot older and more experienced than you think. I know how things should work (as we agreed to when each state ratified the Constitution) and how they really do work. I know that the 23 executive orders B.O. signed today, violate the spirit of the Constitution. I know the Senate does not want to pass a budget so that they can just spend without any restriction. I know that B.O. had to appoint "Czars" so he would not have to ask the Senate to approve his friends that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. And I know what the phrases "right to keep and bear" and "shall not be infringed" mean.
Johnny also wrote: "Were you taught that in your basics of government in school?"
Were you Johnny? I'm willing to bet (and if I do make a bet I will pay it off alot quicker than Keith) that you are willing to trash the Constitution the rest of the way as long as you and yours can steal from the rich so you don't have to work.
John Wilson
11:20 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky –
Physical age is only a number; it does not connote the wealth and breathe of one's life experiences or lack of the same. Did you serve in the military, a combat zone, have you killed an enemy up close and personal, saved tanned, wounded women and children from a bombed out village under active attack, have you lived and worked in different countries?
We American's do not live under your specious definition of "spirit" of the Constitution; we live under the "laws" enumerated in our Constitution and the interpretation of those "laws" by our Supreme Court. You may have your opinion of those "laws" but then so may the other 311.5 Million people living in America.
Regarding your alleged knowledge of the Constitution and how government works, you should know that the Minority Party – particularily in the senate – has always possessed an extraordinary amount of power; the Constitution was set up that way, purposefully, so that the Majority Party simply could not eviscerate the other party. That is precisely why – in today's totally dysfunctional senate – any senator, without even revealing his/her name can just state opposition to a bill and the bill is effectively filibustered… [DEAD]
Your puerile and plebeian interpretation of the Constitution is astounding!
I only gamble on my chess prowess; if you desire to be more humbled, we might setup - my minimum is 1k per game - and you would have to bring the cash with you...
John Wilson
12:04 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky –
The ACA and the amendments added to it since its passage in March of 2010 are all very well kept secrets; they are only know to various congressional and senate committees, the House, the Senate, the TV Media, numerous talk shows and a plethora of US Government and independent Healthcare publications. IF you remain ignorant of this landmark Healthcare Bill (ACA), you do so purposefully. [It is always easier to parrot party talking points – and attack – then to actually read, and become independently informed.]
The Democrats have their special interest groups; the Republicans have their special interest groups… most of the time, these special interest groups support both parties, just so they have a backup position.
This great experiment in DEMOCRACY, what our founders embarked upon some 237 years ago, is what it is because of the actions and inactions of both of the political parties and the ignorance and complacency of the American people… to conclude otherwise is to ignore reality and be one of the most politically partisan hacks on the entire planet…
The Anti-Alinsky
1:50 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
John Wilson wrote: "The ACA and the amendments added to it since its passage in March of 2010 are all very well kept secrets; they are only know to various congressional and senate committees, the House, the Senate, the TV Media, numerous talk shows and a plethora of US Government and independent Healthcare publications. IF you remain ignorant of this landmark Healthcare Bill (ACA), you do so purposefully."
Uhm, Johnny, that is what I have been saying all along. Funny how you don't seem to listen, then mimic back almost verbatim what I said. Maybe you should give up the Wednesday evening pot sessions you have confessed to. BTW it is PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but since B.O. has no problem owning it, we should call it what it really is Obamacare, or more precisely, Obama-don't-care since he is screwing the middle class.
John Wilson also (ignorantly) wrote: "This great experiment in DEMOCRACY, what our founders embarked upon some 237 years ago…"
Johnny, we live in a Republic, where we elect our leaders and representatives. Watch this video to get a great explanation of the difference
The Anti-Alinsky
2:03 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
John Wilson wrote: "We American's do not live under your specious definition of "spirit" of the Constitution; we live under the "laws" enumerated in our Constitution and the interpretation of those "laws" by our Supreme Court. You may have your opinion of those "laws" but then so may the other 311.5 Million people living in America..."
Yes Johnny, we live under the written word of the law. Unfortunately, even the best written laws still leave some grey area, which is why we have a court system in place.
Earlier I posted how I read the 2nd Amendment:
The right (a fundamental entitlement)
of the people (all of us)
to keep (possess)
and bear (carry)
arms (weapons, including fireARMS)
shall not be infringed(to encroach upon)
Seems pretty straight forward to me. But there still needs to be SOME limits. For example, lets say I own a gun and you own a home. You declare the home to be a gun free zone. Does the 2nd Amendment give me the right to come visit you carrying a firearm? Of course not.
Our founding fathers wrote a great document, they concentrated more on procedure and rights than actual laws. But the wording left some gaps in implementation. POTUS uses sources outside the Constitution when making a ruling, including The Federalist Papers, other writings by our founding fathers, and previous court rulings. The judges use these to determine the intent or SPIRIT of the law as best they can!!!
The Anti-Alinsky
2:13 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Johnny also wrote: "... That is precisely why – in today's totally dysfunctional senate – any senator, without even revealing his/her name can just state opposition to a bill and the bill is effectively filibustered… [DEAD]"
Johnny, a filibuster is a stalling tactic. Used long enough it CAN effectively kill a bill by stalling it long enough, but it's kind of hard for a Senator not to reveal his name since he has to continue speaking. This is not something written into the Constitution, it is part of the rules of the Senate.
Maybe you need to go back to school for a civics lesson. It sounds like you have gathered bits and pieces of various conversations and pieced together your understanding of the United States government.
John Wilson
3:13 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky –
Once again, you are inaccurate… senators no longer have to get up before the senate and speak for days... only ONE has to notify the Senate Majority Speaker, Reid, that he/she stands in opposition to the bill; his/her name is kept secret and may not by current senate rules, be revealed. As a pragmatic issue, this is the state of the current filibuster, and it does effectively KILL the bill and stop any further action on it. [The days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington are as dead as your cognitive abilities and knowledge of the Constitution.]
The only current work around is for there to be a conference between the two political parties – compromise – and have the senator withdraw his/her opposition.
You really need to follow your own inane advice: "Maybe you need to go back to school for a civics lesson. It sounds like you have gathered bits and pieces of various conversations and pieced together your understanding of the United States government."
"The Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago, in United States v. Ballin, that the House and Senate lack authority to adopt rules that conflict with the Constitution. Specifically, the justices said that while "the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings, [i]t may not by its rules ignore CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS or VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS." [My CAPS]
The Anti-Alinsky
4:04 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Johnny, the "silent filibuster" is a choice made by the Majority Leader. The fact that the he would just not schedule the subject for debate rather than force the Senators into a true filibuster is a lame way to chicken out of it. Show me in the Senate rules where a "silent filibuster" exists.
John Wilson
5:08 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Anti-Alinsky –
I guess if you have nothing of any substance to add to the discussion, resort to obfuscation and mundane comments on the obvious.
YOU were the one who could not, cannot and do not understand the ACA Bill. YOU stated, "Kind of hard to read things like the Affordable Care Act when it is still being edited while voted on." Again, if you do not understand it, do not blame the bill; you do not understand it because you have not taken any time to read it or the amendments, you would rather attack it - not knowing what it is, and not following the amendments - the hallmark of a true intellectual.
America was, is and always will be the great experiment in DEMOCRACY. Yes, we call our form of government, not a Republic, but a Representative Republic. The majority of the people elect our representatives; the majority of our people elect our senators; the majority of our people elect the president; the majority of our representatives create our laws; the majority of the Supreme Court Justices create and interpret our laws…
Woven through all of our government is MAJORITY RULE or DEMOCRACY…
"Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights)."
5:17 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
HEYYYYYYYYY, give it a rest for god sakes, I am sick an tired of getting e-mails about another post here. YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO??????
John Wilson
11:53 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
Yeah, I'm with you... I have to get down to the firing range yet, and pick up my new M79 LAWS Rocket!
The Anti-Alinsky
6:29 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Johnny, you are just getting ridiculous. I don't know ANYONE that uses the acronym ACA for B.O.Care. There are too many other things with those 3 simple initials.
As far as B.O.Care, have YOU read the bill? If so enlighten us. If not, here is the guts of it:
Parent's can carry their children up to age 26.
Preventative health services for women is required at no extra charge above men's coverage.
Pre-existing conditions is can no longer cost more or turned down for coverage.
Increased minimum standards coverage.
All of the above, while admirable, shifts the burden onto others, most notable myself and other health insurance paying individuals.
ObamaCare will increase Medicaid's unfunded mandate to states by at least $118 billion.
Here's one of the funny parts. Democrats screamed about how much Bush43's Medicare changes cost, then took it to the next level by increasing coverage and reducing the donut hole.
The costs of its rule for just the "free" preventative care will be passed on to consumers, causing premiums to increase 1.5%.
Here's one simple enough for you to understand. The estimated cost of health care reform over the next 10 years is $940 billion. Guess where the money is coming from?
I know you are willing to sacrifice your rights and let B.O. make all your decisions, but be careful what you wish for, you might get it!
Brian Carlson
10:16 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
AA. You continue to think and speak in extremes. Did I say your Right should be taken away from ALL OF US because ONE PERSON did something stupid? But since you bring up that number, one person.... One person with a bomb in his shoe has completely changed the way we do security at the airports.... You and I must take off our shoes. Another guy had an underwear bomb.... Now we are body scanned. These regulations have changed because of acts of ONE STUPID PERSON. I didn't ask for that and certainly don't want to take away rights. The Amendments btw are not, in themselves, rights. They are meant to guarantee rights. The 2nd needed to be clarified as written.
The Anti-Alinsky
11:28 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Actually Brian, that is a great point to discuss. Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. said "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." That is where the REASONABLE restriction to rights comes in. In the case of flying, the rights of the passengers and aircraft to arrive safely superseded the right of the individual not to be searched before boarding. But something else rises well above that...you also have the right to seek other transportation, or not go at all.
Concerning the right "to keep and bear arms", we have the right, guaranteed under the constitution, to protect ourselves from those wishing to do us harm, including a tyrannical government. Of course, even though we also have the right not to engage in violence, any idiot can violate that right by attacking me, necessitating the need to protect myself as I see fit.
We have enough REASONABLE restrictions in place regarding gun ownership. Mentally unstable people and felons can not own guns. The problem is enforcement. How do you enforce the EXISTING laws without stepping on everyone's rights. Maybe that's where you need to focus your attention!
Brian Carlson
12:00 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
As you will see AA, over half the country does not think we have enough REASONABLE restrictions. And this is our point of disagreement.
vocal local 1
4:20 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Seeing you guys know so much about the second would you please explain the militia. Allow me to explain my confusion and points of question. The militia today is the Natl. Guard. But, the guard is under the control of Janet N. (I can't spell her last name) per the Patriot Act so we don't have a militia? If citizen's claimed the right to form a militia wouldn't legal authorities arrest under conspiracy to overthrow the government?
Daniel S.
11:12 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
My understanding is: a Militia is made up of Civilians, they are unpaid and they do not necessarily stand behind the actual military. As has been said many times, the "right to bear arms" is also about protecting the nation from government run amok; that is why the right "shall not be infringed". The uprisings in the Middle East can be looked at as "right to bear arms" activities. Here's a question: Why does our government supply Fully Automatic Military Issue Assault Rifles to Rebellious people in foreign lands, but attempt to disarm it's own people of lesser weaponry?
Brian Carlson
11:23 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Daniel S.... The government arms people in other lands who are determined to be playing into our agenda of empire, directly or indirectly. It's cheaper and cleaner than putting our boots on their soil. As to disarming it's own people, be a bit more specific. I think the balance of public here would not approve of fully automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. The balance wants stricter regulations on what we already have.
11:39 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
As far as I'm concerned, the right to bear arms is not the issue in this particular blog. We were asked if recent events had made us more likely to become gun owners. Some of us answered no. A few answered yes. But mostly the ones defending gun ownership owned guns already, and the comments devolved into the same-old same-old.
And here's an example of how owning a gun and using it during a 'home invasion' hurt rather than helped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting
John Wilson
2:40 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Randy1949 -
Great points, all of them, even though I have read the link before...
Yes, we have strayed from a very simply - Yes/No – question posed by this blog, and I am guilty of that too.
My final contribution to this blog is simply this: We have exhausted defending, supporting, and creating a religious dogma out of gun rights here; where is there any exhaustive discussion about the voluminous RESPONSIBILITIES THAT GUN OWNERS POSSESS.
This has been a singular discussion related to RIGHTS to own a gun… then once I own a gun, MY RIGHT, I can do anything I want!
RIGHTS are always balanced by RESPONSIBILITIES!
I hope that at some point in time, we may exhaustively discuss RESPONSIBILITIES…
Daniel S.
12:04 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Well Randy1949, this is a poor example of gun ownership being a bad thing. It is however a Great example of the out of control law enforcement raids we have made legal in our disoriented society. Did you read the story you linked to? The police set the whole thing up from the start. This was murder by those who are supposed to be Protecting us.
12:14 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Yes, I did read the story. It was a no-knock warrant in a dangerous neighborhood, where the bursting down of her door was likely to be taken as a home invasion. If the little old nonagenarian lady had not had a gun to shoot she'd most likely have received an apology rather than a rain of bullets and drugs planted in her house by officers trying to cover their screw-up.
Daniel S.
12:18 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I disagree, they would have likely murdered regardless. Oh wait, our servants don't do those kinds of things . . . . . glad you shared this article; maybe it wake more people up to Why We Need to have the right to Bear Arms and have the current restrictions that violate our rights repealed.
12:23 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
You really think the police planned to gun down a ninety-something old black lady in her chair from the git-go? I can definitely see them covering their behinds once it went down. Because police have been known to do that.
So how could Ms. Johnston have saved herself from an armed SWAT team with better weaponry?
Brian Carlson
12:05 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
If only she had had more guns, better guns, more training! She needed a thirty round mag and a state of the art weapon. Then it would be a different story. That is one sickening article...all the mores for the coverup.
Bottom Line
12:53 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I posted earlier that am not inclined to change my position regarding gun ownership.
There are many comments that have transformed this blog into discussions that would be better served with blogs of their own, though I am not likely to expend that energy.
One in particular - security checks at airports - peaks my interest. I have long believed we have accepted a transformation, without changing the Constitution, regarding personal rights.
The notion that any have the right to assert their Constitutional rights on private property amazes me. I would invite our more energetic writers to open a blog for discussion of this issue.