Most gun owners can’t hit a target a foot away from them. To own a firearm doesn’t mean one knows how to use it effectively. It takes knowledge, hours of training, discipline, and a clear head. Most gun owners are satisfied to attend gun shows, show buddies their arsenals, shoot off their stupid mouths about the 2nd amendment, which they obviously don’t understand, and, oh, yes, shoot puppies who stray into their backyard. My diagnosis: most gun owners are constipated. Blow your opinions out your lower hole so we don’t have to bear their stink.
Gun Owners – 1/8/2013
Published
Fraction Man .00000000133 
“Most gun owners can’t hit a target a foot away from them. …. and, oh, yes, shoot puppies who stray into their backyard”
I guess the run up and stick the barrel against the puppies head and pull the trigger since they can’t hit anything more than “a foot away from them.”
“Blow your opinions out your lower hole so we don’t have to bear their stink.”
Yes, and you have set a perfect example of how to do that.
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Yes, the usual gun owner must shoot the puppy from less than 12 inches away if he has any hope of hitting it.
A highly armed but untrained and irresponsible populace is exactly what we have right now and thousands of people are dying every year because of it. Having extremists like you whining for more and more firepower only makes it worse.
You don’t want guns to ward off “tyranny” anyway. That’s a goddamn lie and you know it. You just want to kill niggers, kikes, spics and six year old children.
“Blow your opinions out your lower hole so we don’t have to bear their stink.”
Yes, and you have set a perfect example of how to do that.
You are very witty.
When the sane citizens of this country finally regain control over congress, your little tea party will be over. Then your brave rhetoric will be put to the test.
LikeLike
“Yes, the usual gun owner must shoot the puppy from less than 12 inches away if he has any hope of hitting it.”
When I qualified for a concealed carry permit in Texas there was a session at the range to prove some minimal shooting abiity (and demonstrated ability to handle a handgun safely). Since all passed I assure it would not be a good idea to bet your life on the belief they could not hit you at the range most gunfights occur (7 yards or under).
There was a study a decade or so ago by the FBI where they were looking for a more powerful handgun round. In one place in the study one researcher was concerned about an overly powerful round completely penetrating the crook and going on to hit an innocent person behind him. But then the FBI study conceded they were not very concerned about that because 80% of the time trained FBI agents completely miss their target anyway (in real gunfights, not on the range).
In Chicago not very long ago several police opened fire on a suspect, missed him, and wounded – if memory serves – something like seven innocent bystanders, some very seriously. Read a story a number of years ago about a policeman and crook opening fire on each other across the hood of a car. Both had semi-auto handguns with “high capacity” magaziness (probably 15+, don’t recollect the story being more specific).
They both emptied their first magazine at each other, then reloaded and fired their 2nd magazines. No one got hit. Now I would be willing to bet that policeman qualified on the range and was technically capable of hitting the bad guy at that range.
You want to really understand the problem?
Read “On Killing” by Dave Grossman. Most people cannot put their front sight on the chest of another person and pull the trigger with the deliberate intent to kill. Apparently there no good tests to figure out beforehand if a person can, or cannot do that. Only way to learn is to have the chance, and to do it.
In war in the past a lot of soldiers were pretending to fight, but were deliberately missing the enemy, shooting over their heads for example. A number of rifles were found at the battle of Gettysurg with a number of bullets loaded one on top of the other – one had seven (these were muzzleloaders).
When they counted the total number of rounds fired and compared it to casualties there was a huge disconnect. The NRA was formed after the Civil War to promote civilian rifle practice because of this exact problem. They didn’t have the benefit of Grossman’s research to understand why.
Beginning in the Korean War a litte, but mostly in the Vietnam War the military learned ways to program people to kill a lot better and overcome this natural in-built psychological resistance to killing. That is why a fair amount of guys from my generation had nightmares for decades.
Sorry for the longer reply – it is probably wasted in any case. You sound like you have way to much hate to listen.
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Looks I missed some of my reply in copying and pasting. Here is the rest of it.
“A highly armed but untrained and irresponsible populace is exactly what we have right now and thousands of people are dying every year because of it.”
Years ago we had rifles in high school. Kids were on the shooting team. Gun safety and training for gun safety was a priority. Today we have the “Gun Free School Zone Act” and many kids grow up without any training whatsoever.
I have suggested many times we ought to put guns back in schools and teach kids about them. Would do a lot I think to improve the situation, but the “soccer mom” crowd wet their pants at the idea of kids knowing anything about guns (including safety, apparently).
As to all they “untrained and irresponsible populace” I guess you have never been to a High-Power rifle match where people using just “iron” sights (no optical scopes) routinely hit targets out to 600 yards? Or people in the slow fire standing match will put 10 shots in a cirle you can cover with your hand easily at 200 yards? Try that standing up with your front sight slowly revolving over the bullseye (you can’t possibly hold the rifle absolutely still) and coordinating pulling the trigger as the sight crosses the bullseye.
Never seen a USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association) either probably? Go see one sometime and you might be amazed at what your civilian neighbors can do.
“You just want to kill niggers, kikes, spics and six year old children.”
One of my older black friends attended my wedding nearly 30 years ago and I work with Israelis every day and have some very good friends who are Jewish. Matter of fact I was in Jerusalem last year for a visit. I also have raised three children, hopefully not too badly. My youngest son is a United States Marine currently serving.
“When the sane citizens of this country finally regain control over congress, your little tea party will be over. Then your brave rhetoric will be put to the test.”
I can only say this about your comment. If you understand German, then you can find words very much in tone like what you said above from the 1930s in Germany. The speakers were members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), more commonly known to English speakers as NAZIs.
And yes, for many Jews in Germany, Poland, Russia, and other Baltic states found their lives were over in places like Auschwitz and Treblinka. A lot of those Germans listened to a rhetoric of hate and had to keep themselves mostly drunk on Schnapps as they herded the naked Jews into the gas chambers.
You really ought to be very careful what rhetoric you listen to, or spout.
lwk
LikeLike
There are millions and millions of pistols, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, bazookas, Abrams tanks, God only knows what else, floating around the USA right now that are in the hands of criminals, budding criminals, undetonated psychopaths and other Monsters of the Million Dollar Mile. The NRA has resisited every effort to control the size of this deadly arsenal or to prevent any person no matter how weak, mentally unstable, criminally minded or downright evil from obtaining a weapon.
If the NRA had any intent of protecting the citizens of the US from themselves, it would demand extensive background checks and firearms training for anyone who purchases a handgun. But no, the NRA responds with “but we do offer training classes to young people on the proper uses of firearms.” Why don’t you organize classes for the Crips and the Bloods and the Street Corner Crack Dealers for a Safer America as well?
As far as the spectre of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Communism is concerned: there were incredibly brave armed opponents who resisted these movements who were hunted down and slaughtered. A heavily armed populace would have had little effect of the subsequent evils because totalitarian regimes tolerate no dissent whatsoever. You and your little band of “sunshine patriots” would be dead hours after your first rantings against the government, whether on the internet or in a high school English composition.
Your arguments don’t even rise to the level of speciousness; they are silly. So some of your best friends are Blacks and Jews? There are plenty of guns aimed at Blacks (most of who are also Black), Jews, gays, anyone else on the Whlites Only hit list owned by people less tolerant than you are and you want them to be armed to the teeth. I can’t understand this death wish. I don’t hate anybody. In fact, I want everyone to live out their natural lives without the danger of an untimely death from gunfire. You think the extreme adherence to Second Amendment is worth the sacrifice of thousands of innocent lives. I don’t. I don’t hate you – I just think you’re an idiot.
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:16:11 +0000 > To: mlookw@hotmail.com >
LikeLike
Here is one comment about your writing style. It is meant to be constructive. Try using paragraphs. It helps a lot in grouping thoughts and arguments.
You wrote:
“There are millions and millions of pistols, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, bazookas, Abrams tanks, God only knows what else, floating around the USA right now …”
There are millions of revolvers, pistols, rifles, and shotguns in the U.S. right now. No one seems to know how many. Many of them are obsolete. The vast majority of real assault rifles are owned by the government. Legal assault rifles (which can fire in fully automatic mode) are highly regulated and very, very expensive. Their appearance in crime statistics are almost non-existent. The use of illegal fully automatic firearms is also a very, very rare event (there was a Beverely Hills bank robbery shootout some years ago).
As to bazookas and on up, that is pure imagination. An Abrams tank takes a very complex and expensive support force to function for more than a couple hours.
“The NRA has resisited every effort to control the size of this deadly arsenal …”
It depends on your point of view. I see the NRA working to resist bad legislation more aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens than that of crazies or criminals.
“A heavily armed populace would have had little effect of the subsequent evils because totalitarian regimes tolerate no dissent whatsoever.”
The whole idea of an armed citizenry is to prevent it getting that far. As to how it would work today I have no idea. In the days of the Founders a civilian militia army opposing a small professional government army and winning was quite feasible.
Today I think that opponents would probably more likely model themselves after the Viet Cong or the resistance in Afghanistan where it seems a large part of the strategy is to make parts of the country un-governable by the government.
“You and your little band of “sunshine patriots” would be dead hours after your first rantings against the government…”
A bunch of guys playing in the woods with their semi-auto AK-47s and dirty camos are not much real threat. That won’t be the most likely scenario. I am not going to discuss possible scenarios because I don’t want to be seen as an advocate of those methods. No one in their right mind would want to see them in their own neighborhood.
“anyone else on the Whlites Only hit list owned by people less tolerant than you are and you want them to be armed to the teeth.”
First off, a lot of people like me entitled to wear the Vietnam Campaign Medal are black, and some of them are my friends. Secondly I think I know some of the people you talk about, or imagine you are talking about, and racism is far from their main motivation. A lot of them, like me, are veterans and have served with black men.
Racism is not the primary motivation of most people are expressing fear of big government. The media and others though have worked overtime trying to paint that picture. It is simply not true, at least in my personal experience.
” You think the extreme adherence to Second Amendment is worth the sacrifice of thousands of innocent lives.”
I don’t know about the “extreme adherence” part of your statement, what it means to you and what it means to me. But yes, I think the 2nd Amendment is worth something. The 20th century is a history of genocide by governments that first disarmed their people. Millions of people died because they didn’t have any real means to defend themselves.
Have you ever read this from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a survivor of the Russian gulags?
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
Let me say this. If we could drastically reduce the size and power of government so that it was not so much a danger to our freedom, then you might be surprised at what I would support in regards to gun safety. But until that happens the right to keep and bear arms is more important.
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Enough!
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:05:18 +0000 > To: mlookw@hotmail.com >
LikeLike
“Enough!”
Ok. Was just trying to have a polite conversation. Hope that at least in the future you will try to see people who disagree with your views as at least not quite the multiple stereotypes you presented. I won’t continue to post on this thread on your blog.
regards,
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
I have dozens of guns. I dare you to try to take them, even at “1 foot away”.
By the way, I have training, lots of it. I don’t want to hear any more sissy assed whining about gun owners. Almost EVER gun owner who has one or two guns has training, they practice shooting, they know how to use a weapon and most of them aren’t actually afraid to defend themselves or someone else.
But the way you portray us “gun nuts”, we’re stupid and “shoot off our mouths”. Truth is, it’s you little fella shootin’ off YOUR mouth, without any knowledge and all you’re doing is showing your complete and utter ignorance.
LikeLike
Hi
Any intelligent, objective person who reads the second amendment understands that the right to bear arms extends only to maintining a well-regulated militia. I’ve copied the amendment here: read the whole thing:
“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.
It’s obvious that Our Founders did not intend for citizens to bear arms unless they were part of “A well regulated Militia”. If the second amendment means something else, then tell me what you think it means.
Maybe the folks you know know are responsible gun owners, but the friendly street gangs who run most of our country’s cities train their killers on the job. Not that much instruction is needed – the victim kneels, the killer stands behind him and fires a bullet in his skull.
A sane program for gun control: Ban assault rifes. Toughen registration requiremnets. Make applicants wait until the state thorougly checks their background. ANY indication of previous violence or dangerous mental illness prohibits the applicant from ever owning a gun. Anyone caught with an unregistered weapon does 20 years in prison.
No more of this concealed carry crap anymore, either. Allow your average guy to strap and he starts to think he’s Dirty Harry and he provokes violence he can answer with his “equalizer”. This lies at the very heart of the Zimmerman case.
Men who don’t own guns are sisses? That’s pretty weird thinking, buddy.
The rest of what you say is noise not worthy of comment.
LikeLike
/chuckles
ANY intelligent person reading the Second Amendment will understand that the right to keep and bear arms extends ONLY to the PEOPLE and that right will not be infringed. Specifically, the “well regulated militia” in your own vernacular has nothing whatsoever to do with a military.
In the vernacular of the founding fathers, “well regulated” mean “well practiced” not “regulated by the government” and in those days it was quite CLEAR that every community had the responsibility to themselves and loved ones to be able to defend themselves on a moments notice.
This is clear in English Common Law as well as American common law. The right to self defense extends not only to the individual but to the families of those affected and by consequence community itself.
Where you folks get off parsing the words “the right of the people” OUT of the Second Amendment isn’t beyond me. You do it out of ignorance of the English language.
There is no such thing as “sane gun control laws”. Gun CONTROL is PEOPLE control. Therefore, by extension you are for controlling people and their actions – which is an affront to Freedom and Liberty.
We have laws against killing, robbery, rape and the use of weapons in crimes. PROSECUTE CRIMINALS when they commit crimes, do not criminalize me and my family, or the rest of society because you’re scared of “guns”.
Prosecute the criminals, put them in and keep them in jail. If they kill someone, the death sentence is the only thing that will stop them in future crimes. This has been shown over and over.
But innocent gun owners who have those “Self Defense Rifles” you folks love to call “assault weapons” who’ve never once committed a crime, never thought about doing a crime and couldn’t do a crime if someone PAID them to do it are to suffer because you want society to change?
No. YOU change. Get over it.
By the way, I never said “people that don’t own guns are sissies”. That’s called “putting words in others’ mouths”. Never said it.
You don’t have a choice to “allow” some guy to “think he’s Dirty Harry” unless you think we should control thoughts too.
Fascist.
LikeLike
Read up on subordinate clauses in the English language then re-read the second amendment. Maybe this is too sophisticated for you, but try really hard and eventually you should understand. I believe in you.
I do not parse out “the right of the people” at all. They have the right to bear arms if they participate in a “well-regulated militia.” In our modern world the government allows people to possess guns for self-defense and sport shooting. This is fine if the prospective owner undergoes a tough background check and if the weapon is authorized. You can have your little pea shooters if you register them. If you don’t, you bought yourself 20 years hard time.
I bet you called an AK-47 an “assault rife” before you succumed to NRA propaganda, you poor brainwashed soul.
Who’s scared of guns? Why are you afraid of registering them? You want any damn idiot to walk into a gun store, buy a lethal weapon, walk out the door not knowing whether he has a history of violent behavior. Thousands of innocent people die from gun violence every yeaar. You and your kindred believe that your mis-reading of the second amendment is worth the lives of these victims. You have blood on your hands, mister!
“Well Regulated” vs “Well Practiced”? This is a distinction without a difference. How do you know what the Founding Fathers meant anyway? Can you read the mind of people who died 200 years ago?
Give some men a gun and his ego expands ten-fold. Police departments and the military weed out these whackos the best they can. Only sane, responsible people should possess firearms has the duty, in the name of public safety, to regulate the access to firearms.
Yeah, yeah, call me a fascist. Extremists call their opponents “Fascists”, “Communists”, “Agents of Satan”, and so forth. Who cares? Nothing but noise. Read LWK’s response to name-calling and take it to heart.
You called gun control advocates “sissies”, now don’t back away, Mister Flip Flop. Obviously I don’t care what you think of me.
MARK
LikeLike
No, I think that the problem isn’t a subordinate clause, rather your misunderstanding of the phrase “well regulated”. It doesn’t mean what you’re saying it means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government control of guns.
Now, where did I call them sissies again? Not in the comments here.
The cops do NOT weed out “whackos” very well. After all, we have so many whacko cops out there.
But your left leaning jerks want to even say US military veterans are “dangerous” even though they have massive amounts of training on weapons use (and I’m in that bunch).
I don’t give a crap about your name calling. I will use what ever words I like, and I’m not going to back down because you call me one… or get all pissy because I called you a fascist. Because, frankly, you’re a fascist and so are ALL gun control “advocates”.
Oh, and by the way, they ARE sissies too.
Why should I sit idly by and play the “game” your way, or the way the Left wants me to play it? You know, all Kumbaya and all that crap – why should *I* play nice when the Left doesn’t?
Shows my IQ? No, not really, it shows my frustration with the fact that since the 1960s you commie bastards (commie, pinko, socialist, progressive, Leftist, fascist – it’s really all the same these days, all interrelated and all working together against what America WAS so don’t bother correcting me) have attempted to discredit the other side with your name calling, and “focus” on your targets.
Alinsky tactics are well known to both sides now. We know who the enemy is.
It’s people like you, gun controllers, people who love Obama and faint at the sight of the guy, and people who want to destroy America as it was to make it into some Euro-like-Utopia.
No. Not happening. Go to hell.
LikeLike
“Fascist”, “Sissy”, “Go to hell”. Those are your arguments in a nutshell – all the rest is noise you copy from a crib sheet.
You risk the lives of innocent people who are dying NOW because you insist people should have absolute, unfettered right to possess firearms when common sense dictates that they should not. Blood is on YOUR hands, but you don’t give a damn about that. You’re a child, a dupe of political opportunists. So spew on! The politicians you support have no respect for you and your ilk. They know you’re idiots. They count on it.
LikeLike
🙂 Really? My “argument” IS pretty lame isn’t it?
I don’t copy my notes from anywhere else. But let’s examine the Left’s argument.
What do they say? Oh yeah, “Baby killer”, “Gun Nut”, “Right Wing Radical”, “Murderer”, “Terrorist”.
So you’re trying to say you don’t like name calling, then your side should stop doing it.
I HAVE an unfettered RIGHT to own guns. I have fought for this country. Perhaps we ought to limit gun ownership to ONLY those persons who have served in the military?
I think perhaps we should only allow people to vote who have served in the military.
I think perhaps the First Amendment needs to be limited. You shouldn’t have access to computers, millions of people, the ability to fax, text and write articles. In fact, when the First Amendment was created, there were muskets and black powder, parchment, quill pens, ink wells and the VERY OCCASIONAL printing press. So by the Left’s Logic, you should be limited to ONLY writing your thoughts down on parchment….
Blood IS on my hands sonny. Those bastards that tried to kill me so many years ago, who, by the way were communists. But other than them, no, I have never gone out and killed anyone. I’ve never used a weapon in anger. I’ve never shot a civilian.
The dupe of political opportunists, however, isn’t me. I’m quite aware of political opportunists and they are the people pulling the strings on your own brainwashed commenting.
LikeLike
Some damn gun nut slaughtered four people at a town meeting in PA yesterday because the idiot, the brainwashed dupe, didn’t get his way in a land dispute with town officials. More INNOCENT American blood shed because the NRA insanely blocks any sensible gun control. These aren’t little yellow people murdered decades ago thousands of miles away who may or may not have been “enemies”.
These were innocent Americans who died in our country yesterday. They were exercising their constitution right to peacefully assemble. But the unfettered right for any idiot to possess a gun obviously trumps the right for people to peacefully govern themselves. But those four don’t count, do they? You don’t give a damn about them, and neither do the unscrupulous politicians you blindly follow as they rob suckers like you BLIND!!! “Ha, ha!” they are laughing to themselves as they sip expensive brandy and suck on Cuban cigars. “Maybe we can invite these ‘patriots’ to crawl on their knees and fellate us if we let them join our club.”
LikeLike
Yeah, you liberals are right. You should ban guns… for liberals because that “gun nut” was a liberal.
LikeLike
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130806/NEWS/130809853
What difference does it make whether he’s a liberal or not? Read the articles about him. He was obviously mentally unbalanced and should not have had access to firearms.
The link points to the obituary of one of the men murdered at the meeting in PA yesterday. His blood in on the hands of anybody who opposes sane gun control in this country.
LikeLike
Some how you think that I believe he should be allowed to have a gun.
I don’t think so. Was he admitted to a hospital previously? Did he have a criminal record before the shootings? What made him mentally unbalanced? When did he obtain the gun? HOW did he obtain the gun? WHERE did he obtain the gun?
You leave out all those questions.
“Sane Gun Control” is hitting your target and not giving up my guns to criminals or to idiots who think *I* should be disarmed because some lunatic went on a rampage.
Guess what Mark, I don’t CARE that you THINK I should give up my guns for YOUR safety. You will be safer around ME with a gun, than you will be around a CRIMINAL with a gun. I’ll use myself as a typical American – though I’m anything but typical.
I grew up around guns, hunting, shooting, and fighting in the military. I’m pretty old now. I’ve seen combat and I’ve been shot at more than once when I wasn’t armed myself. By criminals. I grew up for part of my life in Detroit. I got robbed by criminals a dozen times. Almost none of them got anything other than a boot to the ass as they ran.
One tried to stab me with a knife. I took the knife away. Another did stab me in the leg another time. I used his own knife on him. He was going to kill me. What was I supposed to do? Stand there and TAKE IT?
No.
99% of all gun owners never use their weapons.
Criminals steal weapons, and then sell them to other criminals. No amount of guns laws, background checks, mental evaluations, fingerprinting, breathalyzing, retinal scans, rectal scans, or regulation will STOP criminals from being criminals.
NONE of that will prevent people like me from owning a gun.
No, you need to realize that what you want is to simply get rid of all guns. Be honest with yourself and others.
And confiscation and complete banning are out of the question. There’s NOTHING sane about those things.
LikeLike
Over an 18 year period the PA whacko displayed signs of untreated paranoid schizophrenia. Under a sane federal gun control statute, anyone could petition a federal court to require Mr. G. Nutt to undergo a psychiatric exam. If deemed mentally ill, the court could authorize the ATF to confiscate Nutt’s weapons, by force if necessary. The weapons could be returned to him when a panel of psychiatrists determined he is no longer a threat to others.
Government has the obligation to protect its citizens. We have potential killers among us who for their own twisted reasons pick up firearms and mow down innocent people, including the 21 six year olds slaughtered in CT. How LONG, brothers and sisters, how LONG? Governments require drivers licenses, construction permits, barbers licenses. If you need pain medication, you get it from a licensed pharmacist. Hell, if you want to catch catfish from a filthy canal, you need a fishing license. But a schizophrenic, or an extremist who makes treasonous statements against our government, or a lowly little creep who wants to feel like a “man”, they and others like them are allowed unfettered access to deadly firearms. Use your head for a change: it doesn’t make sense.
BTW: you were not fighting for your country when you served in Viet Nam. You were fighting for the political aspirations and historical legacies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. How many young men were killed or maimed because neither of these men would admit to be the first US president to lose a war? Was this worth a single human life? Was this worth the slightest flesh wound, a scraped knee? In Viet Nam you fought valiantly for your own life and the lives of your buddies. Unfortunately, you were the victims of lies fed to you by two corrupt administrations, one Democratic, one Republican. To paraphrase the Who, don’t be fooled again.
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:27:57 +0000 > To: mlookw@hotmail.com >
LikeLike
You know, gun owners like me feel as bad about those children dying in Ct. But some how you folks like to lump everyone together. The truth is, “brothers and sisters” you are not going to take our guns, not without a fight, not without bloodshed – probably yours.
You need to get it through your head that this isn’t about safety. It is about a RIGHT. Just like the first amendment which you so dearly love, and love to abuse, the second amendment protects your right to free speech.
Criminals commit crimes. They will do so with or without access to guns. A crazy person will find another way, like using explosives or driving a car through a crowded pier like happened a day or so ago.
Taking MY guns from me won’t stop criminals and nut cases. But taking MY guns from me prevents me from protecting myself and family from home invaders. It prevents me and you from keeping that freedom of speech you so dearly love.
Taking my guns, a legal gun owner, from helping YOU keep YOUR freedoms.
In response to your remarks about fishing, construction and barbers…. why do we need so much regulation? Why force people to get certificaions for computer work? Why do WE allow the government into everything we do?
I dont like it and most people dont. Regulation is killing this country, it is killing our ability to grow and thrive and it is forcing American into a third world country.
That what you really want? Because I do not.
One last thing, you and most others have a very wrong conception of access to guns. In EVERY STATE to purchase a weapon you MUST go through a background check.
You cant walk into a gun shop and buy one without it.
To get a concealed carry permit, you must undergo training of some sort, or at least prove proficiency. There are laws we all must follow.
The kid in Ct. killed his mother allegedly, and took her guns, allegedly, and killed those kids, allegedly. There have been zero release of anything to prove any of it. For all we know someone else did it and dumped that kids body there to make it all look like he did it. None of us knows the truth.
We only know what the authorities told us.
I for one no longer believe the bullshit the “authorities” feed us. Neither should you.
Wake up, we wont give up our guns, not volutarily, and certainly not without a fight.
LikeLike
Gun buyers do not undergo a rigorous background check and you know it. Who the hell are you kidding?
If the government comes after your guns, there are three possible outcomes.
1) You will surrender them peaceably.
2) The guns will be taken from you and you will be arrested.
3) If you resist, you will be shot down like the dog you are.
You rant and rave about your rights, and you don’t give a damn who has to die for your kinky fetish. You are an irresponsible thug, no better than a criminal. Don’t make veiled threats against me!! My blood will stay right where it is. I pay taxes for the police to handle losers like you, so fuck off! You wasted enough of my time, asshole. Consider yourself BLOCKED!
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 00:20:51 +0000 > To: mlookw@hotmail.com >
LikeLike
Btw to the “gun nut” who said you be mad or be effective, but you cant be both….
I will point something out. When someone wants thought control, as Mr. Wilt has more than once implied, that, sir, is fascism. Forcing everyone to undergo psychiatric evaluation is nothing more than thought control. Psychatry is not an exact science, you cant with any real degree of certainty determine the mental state of anyone, or even why or what they are thinking.
The truth is, this type of thing is an attempt to eventually ban all guns.
I will point out that doctors offices have begun to require patients to fill out mental health forms…. as far as I can determine this is some Obamacare regulation. I refuse to do such a thing.
Liberals are mostly Progressives and every progressive I know is a closet Communist. Most wont admit it in company of others but the signs are there.
I call it like I see it, Mark is a fascist if he thinks he can force me to do something against my will.
LikeLike
As usual, you missed the point of my post. Why bother arguing any more, you’re an idiot. You WILL lose your guns sometime soon, and if you die defending your “rights”, so be it.
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 00:31:18 +0000 > To: mlookw@hotmail.com >
LikeLike
“Any intelligent, objective person who reads the second amendment understands that the right to bear arms extends only to maintining a well-regulated militia.”
Quoting:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
End Quote:
According to this landmark Supreme Court case the right recognized in the 2nd Amendment does not depend on the existence, or individual participation in a state militia.
Here is a good article on the grammar of the 2nd Amendment
The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
This phrase:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
Is expanatory of the intent of the next phrase, but does not logically in any way limit, alter, of modify the meaning of the second phrase which goes:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The second phrase simply recognizes a right and says it shall not be infringed.
Here is what I say about the 2nd Amendment.
The real right is the individual right to protect one’s self, family, community, and nation. At the time of the Founder’s the legal right to own a firearm was considered as absolutely key to being able to exercise a right to self defense.
I personally don’t think that those who oppose the current state should try to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean something it did not say (that it was contingent on a militia, etc.).
What should be done is to discuss whether the right should be amended based on differences in technology between now and the late 18th century. At least that would be an honest debate.
My view is that we have a more pressing problem than gun violence or school shootings. We have a problem of government out of control, spying on everything and anything, and often refusing to even obey the laws it passed. For example on that last statment consider that the Obama Administration is talking about suspending implementation of parts of “Obamacare.” The executive does not have legal of Constitutional authority to decide what laws it likes and will enforce, and what it is convenient to ignore.
Does not those problems concern you?
Regards,
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
I am aware of the Supreme Court decision and they got it wrong. Aren’t there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?
Hey, Tadrod thinks we are both morons (it was only meant for me, obviously)! I accept that as a badge of honor. Some people (on both sides of the issue) confuse name calling with debate. Not that there is anything wrong with a cleverly worded insult. That’s the fun part of debate. Now that I think of it, I may have called you an “Idiot” at least once during our colloquy, and I apologize – heat of the moment, blah, blah. I disagree with every word you write, that includes “the”, “and”, “of” all of them. But, I hate to say this, you are certainly not a “moron” nor an “idiot”.
LikeLike
americanpatriotrealitycheck wrote:
“Fascist.”
I didn’t quote a lot of what you said. I thought the above was illustrative enough.
You would be hard pressed to find a more dedicated and fanatical “gun nut” than me. Been one since I got out of diapers in the 1950s.
I understand your anger. Believe me, I do. But you are not doing the cause a big favor by talking this way to people. Consider this. I wrote a number of posts to his blog. he argued back and forth and doesn’t necessarily agree with me. Decent people can disagree with us, and often do. The problem is simply differences of understanding and experience in many cases.
But you know what? Unlike a lot of other people who want to regulate guns, he approved my posts. He argued and let my arugments stand on his blog where other people can read them and make up their own mind.
If you want to defend your rights learn to argue in a reasonable tone without anger and calling people names. Let people on the other side do that. That helps us, not them.
The bottom line is this. You can be mad, or you can be effective. You can’t be both. 🙂
Regards,
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Mark L. Wilt wrote:
“Read up on subordinate clauses in the English language then re-read the second amendment.”
Parsing grammar was never my strong suite in school. That is why I gave a link to this article:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
In the above article J. Neil Schulman writes about his interview with a certified expert on English usage:
Here is Neilman’s description of his expert, Roy Copperud:
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.
[end quote]
Here is what Copperud had to say in reply to a question by Schulman:
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
[end quote]
It is worthwhile to read the entire article. It is not that long.
I think we’ve discussed the following, but I’ll give a quick summary answer:
“Why are you afraid of registering [guns]?”
Because we believe it would be only a prelude to confiscation. Years ago people scoffed at that, but that is exactly how it played out in the U.K. and Australia.
“You want any damn idiot to walk into a gun store, buy a lethal weapon, walk out the door not knowing whether he has a history of violent behavior.”
I have a suggestion that can go a long ways towards preventing that without registration.
On my driver’s license there is a code that says I am required to wear prescription glasses when I drive.
Ok, why not a code on my license that says I am not disqualified to buy a firearm? No “instant check,” no need to register individual guns. A person gets out of jail and gets their driver’s license and there is no code on there license hence if they go into a store and have to show the photo id the dealer won’t sell to them. Same thing for someone committed involuntarily to a mental institution.
You can have a process for people to appeal to a court to restore their rights (after so many years out of jail and good behavior you probably should restore that right).
The benefit is that _everyone- essentially has a “background check” to buy a firearm. Only those disqualified do not have the code on their driver’s license or photo id. Government doesn’t get a list of who owns guns.
The same thing would apply to private sales. Guy comes to my house and wants to buy a gun. Fine, show me your id. Make it a felony to knowingly sell to someone without checking, or selling anyway if code is not there.
Will crooks still get guns? Of course they will, but a fair of amount of people who really shouldn’t either won’t, or will find it a lot harder to do so.
“You and your kindred believe that your mis-reading of the second amendment is worth the lives of these victims. You have blood on your hands, mister!”
Millions of people died in the 20th century at the hands of their government after they were disarmed. Genocide was a theme of the 20th century from Lenin and Stalin to Hitler to Mao to …. well it is a long list.
So if I have “blood on my hands” then I can live with that. I know to whom I will have account at the end of my life.
“Can you read the mind of people who died 200 years ago?”
The Federalist Papers are a great resource for figuring out what they had in mind.
“…in the name of public safety, to regulate the access to firearms.”
Unfortunately in this world all choices have their costs. You can largely ban firearms, or make it too costly for most to own them, or make everyone jump through enormous hoops to get access. Then you feel good you have saved some lives, but you maybe don’t know of the lives lost because people didn’t have means to defend themselves, or even worse, you allow your government to become so powerful and unaccountable that it is no longer afraid to use force against people who think it is too powerful.
Everything has a cost. Nothing is for free. The slogan on my blog is “Freedom isn’t free.”
Regards
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Mark L. Wilt wrote:
“‘Well Regulated’ vs ‘Well Practiced’? This is a distinction without a difference. How do you know what the Founding Fathers meant anyway? Can you read the mind of people who died 200 years ago?”
The issue of what “well-regulated” means has come up many times before. If your read the Neil J. Schulman article and his interview with Roy Copperud you have this:
[begin quote]
Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”
[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”
[end quote]
This site also has some interesting observations and references:
The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
[begin quote]
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
[end quote]
Then he gives some examples from the Founders, i.e., The Federalist Papers, etc.
If you read all this what conclusion can you come to?
1. A “well-regulated” militia was not a bunch of guys with guns going off in their own direction without any supervision or discipline.
2. A “well-regulated” milita was also one that was properly equipped, trained, and led by qualified officers under civilian authority.
“Civilian authority” is a key concept here.
But which “civilian authority”?
Quite clearly if you read the Federalist Papers and the debates by the Founders the militia was a “state militia” controlled and _regulated_ by state governments, not the Federal government.
Again if you read the Federalist Papers it will become clear beyond any doubt that the Founders saw state militias as potentially standing against a small Federal government.
Since the Milita Act of 1903 we have a National Guard which largely takes the place of the former militias and gives the Federal government greater power and control.
The truth is that the militia of the Founders no longer exists. However the wording of the 2nd Amendment does not condition the right to keep and bear arms on the existence of the militia as the Founders envisioned it. That is basically what District of Columbia vs. Heller said and it meant.
Logically the 2nd Amendment should be re-written to clearly guarantee a right to self defense and delineate how and when a person can lose that right (e.g., being a felon or dangerously mentally ill). The problem is that it is simply too dangerous to try, and probably too difficult to get consensus on. So apparently the 2nd has to stand as it is for the forseeable future.
The only possibility I can see of that is to reduce the size and power of government first. I guess that is kind of like trying to get our southern border secure before discussing immigration reform.
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors, for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings, You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword….wait there’s even more Now what if i told you there was a simple WordPress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That’s right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin
LikeLike