Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USA second thought on Second Amendment
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom.” — NRA President Wayne LaPierre
You know, this victory could eventually backfire politically on LaPierre and his buddies.
Over the past few years, the American voting public had demonstrated pretty clearly that they weren’t eager for a lot more gun regulation. As a result, the gun debate had turned to the advantage of the GOP.
But this changes the debate. Somehow, I also don’t think the public is eager to start rolling back a whole range of gun laws, laws they had come to accept and support as necessary for public safety. It’s possible that with this ruling, an issue that has worked to the political benefit of conservatives could instead become a problem for them.
Because the NRA has never demonstrated a finely honed sense of how far is too far….
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By James
June 26, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman:
I feel like a broken record as we have been over and over this but ………….. It’s the same for any of our basic Constitutional rights. You guard them constantly. For example, the Court often issues a ruling regarding the 4th(searches), 5th (self-incrimination) or 6th (right to an attorney) Amendments which gives some criminal a new trial (minus critical evidence), sets him free or makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to catch and prosecutors to convict heinious criminals. However, we hold those Amendments SO SACRED that we are willing to pay that price to protect them and keep them as restrictive on the government as possible. What price? Additional citizens being killed, raped, assaulted, etc. Happens everyday.
The Second Amendment is no less sacred as all the others and ultimately our free form of government depends on it.
U.S. Secret Service (supervisor retired)
By Taxpayer
June 26, 2008 6:42 PM | Link to this
Does anyone really care whether another person has a cannon or RPG or whatever in their possession. After all, how can that be the real issue. Have we not been through all this before, on larger scales, with the cold war and terrorist attacks. The issue is with the destructive capacity of said possession combined with the fact that it is in the hands of a human. A HUMAN. You know, the creature capable of everything from eating its own to turning the other cheek, all in the wink of an eye. Just out of curiosity, what two components are needed to build a terrorist. Your honor, he was fine when he left for work this morning. There wasn’t any sign of a problem. I just don’t know what made him SNAP — just like that.
Then again, what if your hands are registered weapons. Some people even claim to have the ability to think someone to death. Scary, huh.
On the other hand, I believe that a good defense is the best offense. As long as I can stop you and your weapon from harming me, then I’m OK with whatever you choose to carry around. If it makes you feel like you are better equipped to deal with your day-to-day issues, go for it. If handguns are all you are allowed to carry in public just let me know so I can dress accordingly. If 10 tons of plastic explosives is to be the maximum amount allowed per individual, then I’ll calculate the maximum blast radius and I’ll know how many acres to buy. Just hurry up and decide while land is relatively cheap and crater-free.
Unfortunately, this is one issue (of several) where Bush really let me down. I remember way back when Bush was talking tough about missile defense and Star Wars instead of worrying about how many evil people were in possession of nuclear weapons. Well, I kinda preferred the “old Bush” — the one I thought I was voting for.
By the way, does anyone know where I can pick up a cheap raygun. I just need it in case my defenses don’t hold.
By Jame
June 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Link to this
To Taxpayer:
Ruger just came out with the brand new LCP .380 semi-auto. Small and light and goes in your pocket easily! 6+1 in the chamber. Use +p hydro-shocks. Get one !
That will have to do until S&W comes out with a raygun.
By Bud Wiser
June 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this
Ray gun? Hell, gimme a RPG. I can sit on the roof of my girlfriend’s trailer and pick off them goats from Billy Bob’s goat farm, one or two at a time.
I hate goats.
A goat will eat almost anything. I saw one once eat the rear seat out of a buddy of mine’s ‘66 Dodge Charger. My buddy’s girl friend was passed out drunk in the front seat with a stack of Bobby Kennedy bumper stickers in her lap, and the goat left her alone.
I guess even a goat has a rational thought at least once in its lifetime, unlike a few Democrats I know.
By Abomi Nation
June 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this
James you are a broken record. This is hardly the question being asked here. Blah, blah, blah sacred document. Yea we get it. Good God, the secret service/USMC/I’m writing a book routine is also getting old. Except for Jay this is an anonymous blog, nobody cares.
Jay I posted on your previous entry the results of a new poll just released by Gallup that I think confirms what you are saying, “49% favor stricter gun laws than exist now and 38% would like to see gun laws remain as they are. Just 11% advocate gun laws that are less strict.”
Americans do favor sensible gun laws. The problem is the NRA now controls the debate. Those that favor sensible gun laws are scared to death of them. Watch, that 11% that want to carry machine guns around will be here in full force advocating for concealed Raygun permits. Of course they think they represent 99.8% of the population.
Ordinary Citizen (not retired)
By GOPs got to go
June 26, 2008 7:12 PM | Link to this
Abomi,
You know James must do his “YOU CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH” imitation at least once a day.
Yes, by all means, let Nuts like the Virginia Tech Psycho have more access to guns. Great idea!
By James
June 26, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this
To Abomi Nation and GOP:
LOL. You guys crack me up.
Not jealous are you of the “Few and the Proud”? Don’t worry. Not everyone could be one.
Most guys I talk with “my age” about my service in the Marines in Vietnam won’t look me in the eye. Not sure why ……….. but I digress.
Hopefully, some guy who gets off on a technicality someday regarding the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment won’t do something very evil to you or you loved ones. If they try, I hope you have “roscoe” of the 2nd Amendment handy. You may need it. If you don’t, maybe a policeman will show up to take the report.
By Rich S.
June 26, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this
Let’s remember what this case was about: A ban on handgun ownership in the home for self-defense, and a rendering inoperable of any long arm for the same purpose. If you live in D.C., you had no right to own or use a firearm in your own home to fend off criminal attack.
Is that a “reasonable” gun law? Is that a just way to treat a free citizen? That you must be disarmed and disadvantaged if you become the target of a criminal predator in your home?
The Supreme Court today sad that such a ban is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, which confers an individual right to own and bear such weapons. The scholarly opinion written by Justice Scalia correctly referenced all manner of historical writings, precedents, and indications of the intent of the framers. They intended for the people to be able to keep and bear arms for self defense and other lawful pursuits.
If you don’t like guns, fine. Don’t own one. But don’t attempt to make this debate look like some sort of travesty of justice, when in fact, it is a restoration of justice.
By Winslo
June 26, 2008 7:40 PM | Link to this
To Rich S. :
Excellent thoughts sir but unfortunately you are dealing with a couple of neanderthal bloggers here.
By GOPs got to go
June 26, 2008 7:54 PM | Link to this
Abomi,
Why do we always get the impression that James is trying to live out a movie somewhere? He’s Clint, No wait he’s Jack, no wait, I was wrong now he’s John Wayne…..
All type, no ink.
By Rich S.
June 26, 2008 8:18 PM | Link to this
GOP got to go, at least James is speaking as someone with experience in firearms and federal law enforcement. Perhaps there is some experience you can learn from, if you could only open your brain a bit.
He’s relaying cogent questions and statemenents in his post, worthy of consideration.
You? Insults only.
Telling.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
June 26, 2008 8:29 PM | Link to this
Call me old fashioned but in my home I make the rules.
By Abomi Nation
June 26, 2008 8:45 PM | Link to this
GOPs got to go,
Did I ever tell you I’m in law enforcement also, yea thats right, I’m Superman. I’m also writing a book. A comic book.
Hey, gosh I just thought of something. Does the constitution guarantee the right to carry kryptonite? Call me liberal but I sure hope not.
Superman (Truth, justice, and the American way)
By gadawg
June 26, 2008 9:00 PM | Link to this
Countless surveys of hardened career criminals say it all. They do not fear police, justice system, prison, or any elaborate security measures. What they fear the most when perpetrating a crime is an ARMED potential victim. The pacifists won’t acknowledge this in their fairly tale world. You bring a knife to a gunfight, and the odds are not in your or your family’s favor.
By James
June 26, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this
To Abomi Nationa and GOP gots to go, et al:
I realize I’m getting away from the point of this blog but Mr. Bookman I “think” will allow me this.
Two points:
1) I wish blogs required full identity and an articulation of one’s expertise (or lack thereof). I think it would make for much better exchanges.
2) I have only been blogging a short while as I have not been retired that long and certainly didn’t have time at work. However, based on my profession in dealing with “certain types” of individuals I have come to realize that a substantial number of individuals who blog have some type of personality disorder at the minimum. Obviously, that makes for very poor blogging for the rest of us.
Just my opinion. If the shoe fits wear it.
By Freedom
June 26, 2008 9:09 PM | Link to this
More than 8400 murders have occurred in Wash DC since the handgun ban has been in effect—not working quite so well, huh? I could give a rat’s tail if a bunch of gangsters and thugs want to kill each other—good riddance, and hopefully it will help the gene pool. However, if this ruling that allows for the legal possession of handguns by law abiding citizens saves even one victim’s life, then it is well worth it.
By ArmedtotheTeeth
June 26, 2008 9:25 PM | Link to this
A woman in our general neighborhood was raped and beaten to a pulp during a home invasion while her husband was at work. Shook us all in the neighborhood. The armed perps are at large. My wife and I are signed up to take shooting lessons and a handgun saftey course. With their advice, we will soon be shopping for the appropriate handgun. My wife who was previously very anti gun insisted on this. She said she’d rather be dead than go thru what that poor woman went thru. This is the real world folks.
By BurningAtlanta
June 27, 2008 4:30 AM | Link to this
Get your thumbs out of your whining mouths, put on some dry pants and grow up.
All the USSC did was uphold the right of the indivual to own firearms and specified it had zip to do with being a member of a militia. I was so sick to death of hearing that mindless argument from the clueless anti-gun crowd.
Localities still have the right to impose all sorts of restrictions but they can’t restrict handguns from the home nor require a firearm be kept in an unuseable condition.
Gee, American citizens have the right to make choices instead of mommy government making the decisions for them. The sky must be falling.
By aaron humes
June 27, 2008 6:15 AM | Link to this
So here goes Bookman again, filling elitist-penned time by trying to justify why crooks have second amendment rights superior to those willing to be regultated.
He asserts possible poilitical backfire to the GOP. The GOP and NRA apparently have been right all these decades, protecting what Bookman THINKS is important rather than the biggest picture of all - The Constitution and the environs molding it.
By GOPs got to go
June 27, 2008 6:45 AM | Link to this
No everyone of you gun slinging cowboy wannabes, I am not Rambo nor do I profess to be with every click of my mouse. However, I do have a lengthy background in healthcare and am ALL to familiar with the results of all your but up dukes mentality.
I for one am sick and tired of violence as an everyday occurrence. Guns of any kind available to the masses. Just where do we draw the line?
ER personal (not retired)
By Ben
June 27, 2008 7:37 AM | Link to this
I don’t care where you draw your line, that your business. Violence is a basic part of the human experience and that is not going change.
So now, anti-gunners you can’t say that court precedent doesn’t say we can’t individually own guns anymore.
By Ret LTC
June 27, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
I feel strongly that a person should have the absolute right to keep a weapon in his home. I also believe strongly that a property owner has the right to keep weapons off of his. That is where the battle is shaping up to be fought. So what’s it going to be. Gun rights over property rights or vice versa. It seems to me that this could be very conflicting for true conservatives.
By GodHatesTrash
June 27, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this
The bottom line of the SCOTUS decision is this - our society, overloaded with knuckledragging paranoid sociopaths, now will make it even easier for those knuckledragging paranoid sociopaths to get deadly weapons.
Tell me how this is a good thing.
By hillbilly ragger
June 27, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this
I’ve seen different polling numbers, and you can’t count on people to be totally honest when they answer such questions, but from what I can tell something like 70% of Americans do not own a firearm.
As you say, Jay—the NRA really has no clue as to how far is too far when it comes to grandstanding on the next court case or legislation.
And Ben @ 7.37, you may be right when you write “you can’t say that court precedent doesn’t say we can’t individually own guns anymore.”
Problem is, “strict constructionst” Justices like Thomas are kinda likely these days to say “precedent, schmecedent.” Actually that’s what they said to justify this latest ruling, which more or less overruled a 1939 ruling establishing the 2nd amendment’s right as a collective one, not an individual one.
So don’t get too comfy. The squishy SCOTUS giveth, and the squish SCOTUS taketh away.
And before anyone starts taking potshots at me, I’m pretty much agnostic on the whole thing. I think the 2nd amendment was weasel-y written on purpose, because the Founders couldn’t come right out and say what they really wanted to about keeping a standing army.
By Peaches
June 27, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
Jay Bookman thinks its a good idea for our soldiers to read terrorists their Miranda rights, extending constitutional protections to non Americans fighting us outside the US. But he is reliably snarky about preserving the right of firearm ownership for US citizens. One idea is pretty easy to find the constitution as it takes up an entire article in the Bill of Rights. The other idea has only been recently discovered by America hating liberals. Whose rights does he care care about? See the DNC spin from Jay? They want to attack the second amendment but learned their lesson about openly opposing gun ownership. Jay got that right off the fax from the DNC. Cushy job when a 23 year old DNC staffer faxes you your point of view every morning. Jay is a shill.
By GodHatesTrash
June 27, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this
It is interesting to see how many people organize their entire lives around their paranoias - we have posters here who won’t go into the city without a glovebox piece, people who have planned in great elaborate detail for the highly unlikely exigency of a serial killer coming through their window and waking them up long enough for them to reach under their bed or pillow to find their pistolero (never mind the fact that guns in the home are 73 times more likely to to kill or injure family members than intruders), people who talk about how in their ‘general neighborhood’ (wherever the h-ell that is) that ‘some women’ was raped during a home invasion…
These fantasies are the products of weak and fevered minds, and yet, our highest court in the land yesterday indulged this sickness, this fear, this stupidity.
How sad for our country.
By Observer
June 27, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this
I find it comical that some street thug can commit a violent crime with a handgun and the left (with the help of the ACLU) will scream about the defendant’s 4th amendment rights and seek to have the gun removed from evidence due to an illegal search. They never argue that the defendant didn’t commit the crime mind you, they just scream about the sanctity of the constitution and his 4th amendment rights.
Where has the ACLU been when it comes to protecting the 2nd amendment? It’s a part of that same sacred document and - like it or not - just as important as every other amendment.
Ah, nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
By Ret LTC
June 27, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this
hillbilly ragger is dead on target. The court left alot of wiggle room and like it or not, the next administration will shape SCOTUS for years to come. No matter who the president may be, the congress and senate are going to be heavily democratic. Any appointee has to get by them and they will have the numbers to influence even a President McCain to appoint justices that can be confirmed. There is no way SCOTUS doesn’t move to the left. I foresee future laws being upheld that confine weapons to one’s home, or bolster a property or business owner’s right to keep weapons off their property. Also be aware that insurance companies are not crazy about laws that allow weapons to be carried anywhere. They bear the liability when some “law abiding” citizen snaps and kills his coworkers, or a “good samaritan” with little or no firearms training decides to shoot it out with a bad guy and kills innocent bystanders in a restaurant, bank, wherever.
By Observer
June 27, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
For all of you strict gun control advocates – go check the statistics on violent crime in England immediately following their gun ban. More recently, check the statistics on violent crime in Australia since they instituted a gun ban. The use of firearms in the commission of a crime went up almost 40%!
I know it’s a worn out cliché, but when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
There are reams of data documenting felonious use of firearms by criminals who owned and possessed those firearms illegally. The statistics on firearm-related crimes committed by those who owned legally registered weapons and had a valid permit to carry them is infinitesimal.
I can’t understand why some would argue against a person’s right to adequately (and legally) arm and defend himself.
By Don
June 27, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
So armedtotheteeth, I guess your wife is going to have this gun readily accessable 24/7? On the kitchen counter, the coffee table, the waistband of her panties, beside the toilet when she has to %$&^? This gun is going to be within arms reach when the bad guy comes through the door? She is going to be so aware of this percieved danger that her gun is at her side at all times even when that cell phone rings and she rushes to the next room to answer it? My guess is that if this threat ever comes through your door that you will have contributed to your wifes misfortune. You sir are an idiot. The theory and the reality of grabbing that gun is radically different than your wannabe gunslinger fantasies. Your wife would be safer with the alarm set and 911 on her cell phone speed dial. Morons like you will get your wife killed. I think they call it the law of unintended consequences. Same goes for you. I bet the night an intruder hits your house you are the one that gets messed up. Grow a set of cojones…or put 911 on your speed dial as well. You’ll live longer Wild Bill.
By Ray
June 27, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
Wait until you have been an intended victim of a car jacking and the only thing that saved your life was the Glock 40 on the seat next to you. Happened in Eufaula, AL about 11:00 PM at a stop sign. Three of our finest citizens were carrying ball bats but no guns. Rolled down the window, leveled the Glock at the first one and almost dropped a dime on this animal. They saw the Glock and yelled, “He got a gun”, and couldn’t get out there any faster. I carry one in my car at all times and have a concealed permit. I am a law abiding citizen, not a gun nut whacko, and have the right to protect myself and my family from animals who do not have the respect for life and property that civilized people do. It’s a shame that it has come to this but as soon as there are no animals like this out there, I will put the Glock away. Until then, don’t hold your breath.
By ron
June 27, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
Good Morning,I applaud the Supreme Court decision that it is not illegal for a law abiding citizen to own a gun in Washington D.C. Other arcane gun laws will be challenged across the country shortly.A federal lawsuit has already been filed against Chicago’s gun ban.Others will follow.Everything now will be decided on a case by case basis.Lawyers will be very happy.
American people are not stupid.They all realize that sensible guns laws have to be upheld.The argument now and for the immediate future will focus on what is sensible.Clearly a blanket ban is notsensible in way,shape ,nor form.
By Tommy
June 27, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
WOW Ray! Brilliant! Now tell us about that guy that just killed 5 of his co-workers with that Glock on the seat. You Dumbazz. Go shoot yourself in the foot.
By GodHatesTrash
June 27, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
If I were trolling around Eufaula AL in the middle of the night looking for street hookers or methamphetamine, i’d want to carry a gun in my glovebox, too.
But I’m not so I don’t.
By Cindy
June 27, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
For every story like Ray’s “Throw Down in Eufaula” story there are hundreds, maybe thousands where kids were killed in their home with a parents gun, where a perp killed a citizen with his own gun, or the gunowner killed himself or a family member with his surrogate manhood. Get a grip all you fantacizing cowards. This ain’t Dodge City and you ain’t Wyatt Earp.
By Ray
June 27, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
Tommy
Who is the dumba** here? Would you have rolled down the window and handed them the keys to your car and pleaded with them not to bash your skull in with a ball bat? Wait until it happens to you and you will not be so smug and judgmental about protecting yourself. Wonder what they would have done with my girlfriend when they finished with me? Gun bans will not stop that guy who wants to kill his co-workers anymore than it will stop thugs that want to steal your car. Wake up, your ignorance is showing.
By Earl
June 27, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Gee, I wonder if a few weeks ago when the 26 young men were killed in one single week-end in Chicago, if the thugs who did the killings knew that the people of Chicago couldn’t self protect by owning a LEGAL handgun. I suppose it’s alright that all the gang banger thugs own illegal guns but no one can own a legal one. That’s justice? Face it, in cities such as Atlanta where the crime is always out of control; when Atlanta witnessed a double digit increase in homicides, robberies and personal attacks in the same year many cities saw a decrease in the same type crimes….you’d be a fool not to carry a gun here. Why should only the products of a single mom in the projects with a name no one can pronounce have guns? The Supreme Court just protected law abidding citizens and gave us the means to protect against thugs, hoodrats and criminals that are too sorry and stupid to work but they want to take away what you worked for. You liberals should be lucky it’s people like us that deter crime by having these thugs think twice before assaulting us now that the score is even. The NRA will now fight and win against gun restrictions in Chicago and San Fransisco, successfully. Why not ban matches because of arsonist or take away the fork and spoons of fat people.
By Carl Smith
June 27, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Freedom did anybody bother to tell you that most inner city “murders” are bad guys killing bad guys? Some of you cretins want the streets of your cities to be like Tijuana or Juarez. Let the bad guys, and the cops do the killing. You impotent wannabes will only add to the body count. You’ll be the ones being counted you morons.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
Oh Dear Abomination you quote a gallup poll without mentioning all of it.
yes, 49% are for expanding gun control.
But it’s how you phrase the question.
When asked “should we focus on enforcing existing laws?” it swings to 58%
and when asked “should be ban handguns?” 68% are against it.
You people with your “reasonable gun control legislation” (code word for ban) are pretty much as bad as the NRA. You overstepped yourselves in places like DC and Chicago and now the pendulum is swinging the other way.
By GodHatesTrash
June 27, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
As long as you have men with braids and baggy pants you need to own a handgun. Perhaps two of them if you take MARTA.
By Ray
June 27, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
GodHatesTrash,
Just taking my girlfriend home after dinner out and a movie. What a trashy statement. Your taste is in your mouth and you need to develop some manners.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Tommy, sure five people were killed at that plastic plant but tell me about how many lives Joel Myrick (using a gun from his car) saved in Pearl, Mississippi, when he stopped Luke Woodham on his way to the elementary school after he was done shooting up his own school.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
I know more than a few black guys who have permits and carry legally. I don’t know if you racist fools are trolls building a strawman to point to, or if you’re serious.
If you’re serious then you need to examine the events in your life that helped you shape this opinion because when you start eliminating whole groups of possible threats insensibly you’re putting yourself in danger.
By EarthtoEarl
June 27, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Earth to Earl! Those 26 were killed as the result of being criminals killed by other criminals. Tell the whole story Earl. Most of them were gang related. If you go into those areas you are either looking for something illegal, looking for trouble, or just plain stupid. Some of the examples here have absolutely nothing to do with law abiding, everyday joes being massacred in mass by roving predators. You guys are nothing but a bunch of sky is falling chicken littles. To bad you overjealous cowards can’t put this misplaced fascination with lengthening your manhood with a gun into something more beneficial as opposed to idiotic. As someone above said, you cowards don’t need guns you need to grow a set of balz.
By Lois
June 27, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Ray,
Just clarifying. You were in a car correct? The “Thugs” had bats, correct? You were only at a stop sign, correct?
Ok, so forgive me, I may be slow, but why couldn’t you have just stepped on the gas and high-tailed it out of there?
Also, the way you describe the story, you kind of seem familiar. Wait, are you Vanilla Ice??
By Tommy
June 27, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Ray did you ever think of just putting your foot on the gas and getting out of there. Probably not. You are the very guy that makes the lefts case. You just leave everybody goes home unharmed. Ray you are the exact kind of guy that gets someone hurt or killed. You are a danger to those around you just like the thugs are.
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Folks, the Rays of the world have probably never been in that situation in their lives. But who are we to interrupt his wet dream.
By James
June 27, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
To GOP’s got to go:
My, my, my. So you’ve seen some blood in your profession. That’s nice. I’ve carried a few men from the field of battle myself.
If I could have a wish some day I think I might just be that for one week (probably just one day) except for me and my loved ones to have every police officer disappear and every gun in the nation disappear. Then I would watch while the brutal masses out there attacked and knifed and clubbed you folks bloddy. That’s all it would take and everyone of you would be out looking for your own gun at the end of my fantasy.
USMC (served proudly)
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
OH good lord, the more I read these short sighted comments the more I dislike my fellow Atlantans.
Don, you’re obviously not very good at risk management or mitigation. Keep your day job.
Carl, most is not all. Please show me statistics. There are plenty of good people who get victimized every year (out of the 1.2 million crimes that occur every year). While it’s uncommon to need the gun I carry (I’ve never needed it before) I’ve also never needed my life insurance, my renter’s insurance, my fire extinguisher, or even my spare tire.. sooo.. what would be your point? I still have that crap anyway, just. in. case.
Earl, remember that more guns don’t mean less crime.. unless you’re the Chicago PD deploying SWAT guys to patrol neighborhoods with assault rifles.. then more guns DO equal less crime for some reason.
Cindy, only about 1,000 people per year are killed accidentally with guns. Only 30,000 total die from guns each year. The total number of people who die in this country every year exceeds 2 million. If you want to save the children stop feeding them crap that makes them fat. Over half a million people die of heart disease every year. Get some context, or at least some fact before you start hitting me with your pointless emotional plea because the flu will kill more children (more people actually) than gun accidents will.
Observer, gun crime in England has risen something like 18% since the dunblane massacre. In a joint report between the crown and the DoJ rapes, theft, and robberies were rising in england while they were falling in the US. In the UK crime is higher than ever before, meanwhile here in the US crime is near a four decade low.
GodHatesTrash, You don’t know what god hate so don’t presume to know his will. Also you’re a sanctimonious jerk.
GOP’s got to go, Please read the ruling. It states that this shouldn’t be an alarm bell to roll back reasonable gun control. The guy from VT shouldn’t have ever been able to buy those guns, that loophole has since been closed. More should follow. If you people could wipe the froth from your mouth for a second and stop pursuing your idiot agenda for a second perhaps we could work together to actually create enforceable laws that benefit everyone. Until people stop being completely irrational about guns ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT then no meaningful compromise can be made.
By Pierce Randall
June 27, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
I would like to think that electoral dividends would come with opposition to gun control. I think, in a straight-up poll, you would find that in the country. But the polling would be heavily regional; people in cities and suburbs generally want tough gun control, and people in rural areas do not. I think there are few issues affected more by disproportionate representation in the Senate and electoral college.
By Ray
June 27, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Lois,
Three cars, one on my left, one in front and one behind with a high wall on my right. No way out. This particular intersection had been the scene of two car jackings in that past month. Eufaula is not the most law abiding paradise, especially after 10:00 PM. I am not Vanilla Ice and the “thugs” did have bats that can make a decided dent in your skull. Picture yourself in the seat next to me where my girlfriend was sitting. She was pretty happy that we were armed. How would you have felt about the prospect of these not so friendly animals making your life pretty unforgettable on that night? Maybe you could have charmed them into leaving you alone. If you want to take chances like that, OK, but I prefer not to.
By Danny Douglas
June 27, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Ray do you realize how stupid you are? What if one of those guys walking home from his softball game got your tag number and called the cops? You cretin. In the words of Denzel Washington in Training Day, “Do you wanna go home, or do you wanna go to jail.” Go home Ray. You can get 10 years for pointing a gun at a bunch of softball players.
By Kung Fu Wolf B*tch
June 27, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
I take offense to some people’s posts. Man, how come no Blacks have been on here to protest. You guys are making it sound like only black men do the henious crimes. That is very wrong! Maybe they get the most publicity, but they do not commit ALL the bad crimes.
Also, for “Cindy’s” scenrio… you forgot to add where he overpowered her and took her gun away and then committed the act holding her at gunpoint.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Well Jay, just imagine this: you are quietly sitting at the breakfast table, reading your penthouse magazine, and your wife suddenly comes at you with 38 snub nose revolver….Don’t ya want to be in a position to return the fire????
By AL
June 27, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
How do I know you’re Liberal? You’re afraid of everything. Guns, personal responsibilty, free enterprise, God, traditional families, convictions. Anything that requires personal and independant thought or responsibilty scares liberals to death. I will never understand??
By Ray
June 27, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Danny Douglas,
Why do you have to twist this thing into something it wasn’t and admit that carrying a gun probably saved mine and my girlfriends life that night? Softball players don’t pin you into a situation like that. Would you have preferred not be armed in that situation? You somehow regret that law abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves from these animals. Who is the stupid one here?
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Jay, Again, you’re a moron.
This Supreme Court ruling is a HUGE win for individual rights. Democrats want to take away individual rights. Just a few years ago, Ted Kennedy tried to get a law passed that said if a criminal breaks in to your house, the home owner has to get out the house and then call the police. Liberals are the DUMBEST people on the planet. Criminals should just find out where liberals live and rob them. It’s not like liberals are going to do anything because liberals love criminals.
By Cindy
June 27, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
Keeping it Real…keep it real. Usually at these “events” there are large crowds of people right. And smart people go in groups, right? Furthermore, in the unlikely case that I am stupid enough to put myself in that situation, and in your scenario the guy has already grabbed me from the back fumbling for my gun is not likely to do me one bit of good. Keeping it really real jackazz, I would have used my remote to unlock my car so I am not fumbling for keys dumbazz style. You can come up with all the “possibilities” you want to, but it’s probabilities that matter moron. Responsible people take precautions to keep themselves out of your “possible” situations don’t they imbecile? It is possible that a bear will rush you from the treeline in your backyard too, but not very probable. Common sense is a person’s best defense and from reading the posts of some of you legend in your own mind gunslingers, you are the most likely to be a candidate for a body bag or the ER at Grady, not me.
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
James, Couldn’t have said it better myself. Liberals don’t understand common sense. They see things through a fantasy spectrum. They think that islamic terrorist countries will just “be nice” if we leave them alone. They hate God and mock everyone who disagrees with them. I just read an article on Marx and I can not tell you the difference between a liberal and a Marxist. They are the same people. What a sad life.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
I have a policy for people who come at me fast from behind on a dark city street: Shoot first, shoot accurate, and shoot alot……
By Danny Douglas
June 27, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Ray! The obvious solution was to just leave. You were in a car that has an accelerator were you not? What you lacked in that situation was judgement. What happens if you did shoot someone with a bat. Guess who goes to jail Ray? Common sense was your best weapon in that situation. You were encased in a mass of steel capable of moving out of that situation. What did you do? Rolled the window down, pointed a gun, and created a scenario that could have gotten terminal. You show a total lack of common sense Ray. You make the left’s case with a story like that. You were the menace in that incident. To everyone. So next time you tell that story at least say that your car had broken down. LMAO!
By Earl
June 27, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Ciny, go cook and clean and clip your man’s toesnails and stop trying to act like God gave you a brain. Also Cindy…firm up some, you type fat.
By Ray
June 27, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Danny Douglas,
See post to Lois above.
By Danny Douglas
June 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Thank you Ken for your astute post. But sorry, I am black and I play softball. While I doubt very much that they were softball players, the point I was making was that if Ray had offed one of these guys he would have been facing no less than a manslaughter charge when his case went to trial. And by the way, his tell got taller as people questioned his judgement. That cannot be denied. Cars to the left of him, cars to the rear of him, cars to the front of him, big wall to his right and with all of these other cars and people around, him in the middle, the bat wielders picked him out to menace. Ray’s story just got more unbelievable as it grew. He fabricated an incident to reinforce his argument. Come on! All Ray had to do was say dark empty street, car broke down, yada yada yada. Ray’s an idiot.
By RW
June 27, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Cindy, calm down and relax. If a person is sitting at home minding their won business and all of a sudden a home invader comes through the front door, how is this the fault of the homeowner and as you said placing yourself in danger. Cindy, you are the reason women cannot be taken serious in a serious discusion and why women are paid less than men. Thank-you Cindy for your ill thought out post, which made men laugh at women a little harder. I think you should go do what Earl told you to do and I will add one more chore. Service your man to completion if he’ll allow you to.
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
This sums up liberals.
To begin with, the liberal agenda is, in many respects, the same as it was in the thirties. Whether you call it communism, fascism, socialism, liberalism, or progressivism, the only real difference is how much they believe they can get away with, the way they sell it to people, and the latest trendy name for what they believe.
So, once the liberals pick a policy from their stale program to push, the next step is to get it implemented. This is where liberals have problems because whether a policy makes sense, is practical, or actually improves people’s lives is of secondary importance to them. What is important to liberals is whether supporting or opposing that policy makes them feel good about themselves.
This is why liberals continue to support dysfunctional policies that have been failing miserably for decades and why they often oppose common sense programs that have been proven to work time and time again — because it isn’t about whether it works or not, it’s about how it makes them feel.
In other words, a liberal will almost always prefer a policy that’s extremely expensive, is difficult to implement, helps almost no one, but seems “nice” — to a policy that is cheap, simple to implement, extremely effective, and seems “mean.”
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Sharon,
Nice. Obviously your mama taught you not to hate men, but bred a lot of Lesbian hating.
And have you ever heard any news reports that say, “so and so, a repressed Lesbian, gunned down several people in the park today…”
No, didn’t think so.
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
More disturbing is the Left’s ever-increasing reliance on what are commonly thought of as fascist tactics. Liberals at college campuses attempt to disrupt conservative speeches and the Democrats want to try to drive conservative talk radio hosts off the air with the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives like Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter have been targeted criminally for political reasons and there’s even talk of trying to jail members of the Bush Administration over policy differences after they’re out of office. Ideological soulmates of modern liberals — like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao — would certainly approve of those tactics.
Still, even though this is a center-right country, we do have political cycles and there are times when those cycles favor the Left. When that happens and the Lefties start to get a bit more confident, usually a few liberals at the edges will start talking about what they want to do. At that early point, most other liberals will still vehemently deny their ideological goals to the public out of fear that it will prevent them from getting into power.
However, when the Left gains enough strength to be capable of getting one of the policies they favor implemented, all the liberals who previously denied that they supported it will unapologetically shift on a dime and vote for it en masse — while they rely on their ideological allies in the media and the fact that many Americans are ill informed about politics to cover their tracks.
So, if you want to know what liberals want to do, their words mean absolutely nothing because lying about their agenda has become as natural to them as chasing a cat is to a dog.
Instead, what you have to do is watch what other liberals have done when they have come into power. Look at Canada, where conservatives are being put on trial for hate crimes because they’ve dared to criticize Muslims. Look at European countries, where they have socialistic economies, sky high tax rates, rigid speech codes, and overweening nannystates. You can even look at liberal enclaves in the United States like Berkeley and San Francisco, where members of the military are treated like pariahs and they boo the national anthem.
If you believe the liberals in Berkeley, France, Canada or for that matter in the bowels of the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, are significantly different than, say Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, you are kidding yourself. The only differences are in what they think they can get away with and how honest they are willing to be about their agenda.
By JAY BOOKMAN
June 27, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
To Trash:
You are banned from posting for the rest of the day on this blog.
By Cindy
June 27, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
Sharon, i’ve been on this earth for 67 years and common sense always trumps false bravado. And by the way Sharon, how does my post make me a lesbian. Are you not allowed out of the house because only lesbians go somewhere alone. Hate men? In what way did my post have anything to do with men? Where did you get that one? Me thinks you are trying to villify me in Rovian fashion because it is extremely hard to argue with common sense. What your mother should have taught you was to use common sense in all situations and you might be able to have a little independence in your life and not have to have a man, a dog, or a gun just to go to the local Kroger store. Sharon, sorry, but your post makes you look really stupid.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
How funny. Al says liberals are scared of everything - and yet reading these posts, it seems the gun-toting cowboy wingnuts are scared of the “what if” criminal.
Uh, huh. Yeah, Al, that makes sense (as I roll my eyes).
Boo! Look! It’s a criminal coming up behind you! It’s an Islamofascist terrorist coming to cut your head off!
Boo!
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
JAY BOOKMAN, Thanks for illustrating Marx style control. Hello Nanny Bookman.
By Ray
June 27, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Danny Douglas,
I first of all do not care what you think! This whole story is very true, rather unforgettable and has been the main reason why I am an advocate for gun rights to protect myself and my family. Just put yourself in that scenario one time and your mind will change too. I would venture to say that you are some arm chair liberal who has no clue what the real world is like and wants to shove your spin down the throats of people who think and act for themselves. Who is the idiot here?
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Sharon, Cindy just gave you a blueprint for what a woman should do to keep herself safe. Listen to her. She is a much less likely victim than you.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Communist AJC -
Why do you wingnuts not cite the nonsense material you post and try to pass it off as your own ideas?
[Give the author of the ridiculous article his due](http://www.omegaletter.com/blogs/index.php/2008/06/27/why-liberals-lie-about-what-they-believe/
By common sense
June 27, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
A gun by itself will not kill. It takes a stupid person or a criminal to do so.
Gun bans will not stop criminals from getting guns. If you think otherwise, you are naive. It will just help keep out of the law-abiding masses.
If you are of legal age, have full mental capacity, and not a former resident of our penitentiaries, then you should be able to own guns, period!!! And those restrictions are already in place.
Some argue numbers, then we should ban automobiles. They kill more than idiots do with firearms. Probably should ban hospitals, because they put thousands in the ground due to the few incompentents that make their way into the field.
We should be very afraid of politicians that want to remove existing rights. What rights will they pick and choose to remove and regulate to fit their agenda?
We should be very afraid of politicians that stand on the fence. They are either wishy-washy or hiding their true position. Why would they hide their true position? Could it be they have hidden agendas!!!
By T
June 27, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Crime will be on the rise. Basic things cost more. So, when the home invaders or the white meth heads, or whom ever decide they need to kick in my door, Ill be there.
One shot one kill!
I love my rifle. Think Ill get a nice 45 and a permit next.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Let’s try that again:
Communist AJC -
Why do you wingnuts not cite the nonsense material you post and try to pass it off as your own ideas?
Give the author of the ridiculous article his due
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Bosch, My bad. Yeah I got it off of Townhall.com. Never tried to pass it off as my own. Just wrote: This sums up liberals. By the way, it makes more sense and calls out liberals for what they really are. Liars, communist, God haters and baby killers.
By GaLiberal
June 27, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
This wrongheaded and convoluted decision by the Supreme Court gives lie to the right-wing mantra of ‘strict constitutional interpretation.’ Clearly, this right is tied to membership in a militia or other armed forces and IS NOT an individual right. But the SC gave into populist hysteria over ‘self-protection’ and other lies the NRA and gun nuts push as truths. This will make the US a more dangerous place to live. Gun-related deaths will skyrocket. People will bring guns into work and you will catch hell if you try to stop them. This is the fallout from putting Rethuglicons in control. This is what happens when people don’t think about the consequences of their actions. This is what happens when people believe in lies and deceit - which is all the Rethuglicons have. I’ll remember in November. Will you?
When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And this decision is living proof.
By Danny Douglas
June 27, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Getting mad enough to pull your heater and shoot me now Ray? Keep going. Make everyone’s case that fools and hotheads don’t need guns outside of their homes. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, why was it that they targeted you and you were in the middle of all these other people and cars? Can you tell us just what it was that made them pick you out?
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Botch, Your link didnt work. So I will post where I found the liberal liars article.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/06/27/whyliberalslieaboutwhattheybelieve
By h
June 27, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Jay,
first time on your blog. Have been on Wooten’s a lot. Have never seen anyone get banned.
I give you props though for keeping control of your blog before it gets too crazy!
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
False bravado? Common sense?
I’m first and foremost a coward. I rely on avoiding trouble to ensure my safety. I’m in the security business so I maintain a pretty keen situational awareness. For what it’s worth Cindy I agree that the first keystone of safety is being aware of where you are and making wise decisions. I’m not a gun slinger, I’m good with a gun, but I’m not a gun slinger.. the weapon I carry is so small and unassuming and useless as anything but a last ditch line of defense that you’d never be able to call me a gunslinger with false bravado with a straight face.
I’ve already spoken about why I carry. I carry for the same reasons I have insurance policies and a spare tire in the trunk, because no matter how unlikely a thing is, it’s better to be prepared for it than not. Now admittedly, there’s some risk management involved because you can’t be prepared for EVERYTHING, but a gun in the pocket is something that’s relatively easy to handle. So.. That’s my thing.
The general lack of civility is frustrating to me when it comes to this subject. I get frustrated and hostile myself and I think if people could see the other side of the argument or live and let live.. well.. being nosy, judgmental, and involved in other peoples’ business is the zeitgeist. Probably the greatest disappointment this country has to offer.
By JAY BOOKMAN
June 27, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
Keeping it Real and all your other pseudonyms: You too. Out of the pool for the rest of the day.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Thank you Communist AJC -
Now, that wasn’t so hard now was it?
I hate plagarism. Don’t you?
By ed from ga
June 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
I’m a lifelong liberal Democrat who doesn’t fit the idiot stereotypes from the crackpot conservatives writing here.
As in any serious debate, there are no simple resolutions.
I read Justice Scalia’s decision and found it well reasoned, well researched and logically and legally sound. I support all of the Constitution, and I support legal, responsible gun ownership.
If you don’t want to own a gun, then don’t; that’s as much a personal choice as having an abortion, or not. But the constant disparagement of people who disagree with another’s personal view serves none of us well.
And to those who seem to believe black folks are the sole or major perpetrators of violent crime, and thus have the starring roles in your lurid descriptions, are you sure you’re not better off spending your time spinning these fantasies as a cuckold site? They do exist. This is the internet, you know.
By Don
June 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Jeeeze folks. Banning guns is the agenda of a very few people. The issue is WHERE a person should be able to carry a gun. There are logical arguments on each side. I tend to agree with Ret LTC. Property owners should have the right to dictate whether or not guns are allowed on their property. Very few people go to the mat over guns in your home or in your car. Get a grip people.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
Communist AJC,
Copying and pasting an article and posting it under your name without giving credit to the original author, is trying to pass it off as your own idea.
Just saying.
By Gumbykelly
June 27, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
More gun laws make no difference at all except to keep honest people from having needed defense. The definition of a criminal is one who does not obey the laws. This country needs to wake up and realize that almost anything can be a weapon. It all depends on the person who is using it. Guns, in and of themselves, are not any more dangerous than a paperweight. It is the person in control of the gun that is the danger. There should be mandatory classes for new handgun owners so that they can be safely used and stored.
By Davo
June 27, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
Hooray for the the people of D.C.! The idea that the govt could put you in jail for defending your life and property is unconstitutional to the extreme.
I have to add that I find many of the comments here very disturbing. Threats and insults only reinforce the ‘liberal’ opinion that some people shouldn’t have guns. Stop the bluster and act like adults please.
By Ray
June 27, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Danny Douglas,
Driving a 93 Nissan Z car, the second most hijacked car in 1997. Car had a manual trans, came up the hill, coasted to a red light in neutral. Before the light, one car sped up and ended up ahead of me, one car on the left, very close and one behind. A high wall on the right. They had done this before. Late at night, only car on the street. Probably parked out of sight on the approach road, waiting for the right target. No, I don’t want to shoot you or any other law abiding citizen. That WOULD be pretty stupid. You have the right to possess or to not possess a hand gun to protect yourself from a similar incident as you wish. So do I.
By Lois
June 27, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
Danny douglas, I think you’re right. The story has changed.
Thought it was a stop sign Ray. Now a red light?
I quote you at 8:42 Happened in Eufaula, AL about 11:00 PM at a stop sign.
Hmmmmm…..
By Gumbykelly
June 27, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
I rest my case on this note from todays copy of this website. Michigan man accused of fork, chicken attacks JACKSON, Mich. — A man was accused of stabbing his mother with a fork and assaulting a second woman with 10 pounds of frozen chicken.
Frederick Duane McKaney, 40, of Ypsilanti, was arraigned Wednesday in 12th District Court in Jackson. He faces two felony assault charges as well as one count of assault and battery and one count of resisting an officer.
Prosecutors said McKaney stabbed his mother in the back of the neck with a fork Monday night.
About an hour later, he hit a woman in the head with a plastic bag of frozen chicken. They had exchanged rude words while he rode his bicycle. She needed five surgical staples to close her wound.
McKaney has no attorney on record with the court.
A pre-exam conference is scheduled for July 2.
By James
June 27, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
By James
June 27, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
To GOP’s got to go:
My, my, my. So you’ve seen some blood in your profession. That’s nice. I’ve carried a few men from the field of battle myself.
If I could have a wish some day I think I might just be that for one week (probably just one day) except for me and my loved ones to have every police officer disappear and every gun in the nation disappear. Then I would watch while the brutal masses out there attacked and knifed and clubbed you folks bloddy. That’s all it would take and everyone of you would be out looking for your own gun at the end of my fantasy.
USMC (served proudly)
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Lois,
you forgot:
he also said he rolled doen the window and leveled the glock at them.
I assume, Ray that you were driving? I also assume, that since it was a Nissan, the steering wheel was on the left side of the car?
So my question now is, if these men came up to you, it would have been between you and this other car on your left, and how would you have rolled down the window and leveled your glock at them?
For that matter, how did they run off? Also, if there were three other cars, where were these supposed car-jackers going to go?
Now, would you like to tell us all the truth about how you felt like showing off for your girlfriend and scaring the cr*p out of some guys walking home after baseball?
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Okay Ray,
Yawn. We get it. You’re one tough guy.
Can everyone just agree that Ray is tough and a bad a* and thank God he saved his family and all that so his ego can be saved and let’s just move on?
By Danny Douglas
June 27, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
So Ray. Now these batboys are going to jack a car trapped on all sides by other citizens. Come on Ray! You get more far out with every post. If this happened at all my suspision is that your paranoia overruled your common sense and you pulled a gun. Exactly the reason that guys like you shouldn’t have easy access to a gun.
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Bosch, I never tried to pass it off as my own. This wasnt for a grade or a Joe Biden moment where I gave a speech and used someone else’s writing. You’re dead wrong about me trying to pass it off as mine.
Again, this is what I wrote. This sums up liberals: Got it?
By Racebaiter
June 27, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
The leftwing loon strikes again. The only proof needed to the rights to gun ownership is Hurrican Katrina. The police couldn’t protect people from roving bands of thugs who looted and attacked innocent people. All people had were their guns, and God help you if you didn’t have one.
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
Gumbykelly,
Yes, the problem lies with the person, not the weapon, but think about what would have happened if he was allowed access to guns, and not just plastic forks and frozen chicken. Those people wouldn’t be alive to talk about it.
Although, that was absolutely hilarious!
From now on, I say we Americans must fight for the right to bear frozen chicken.
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
I think in Ray’s case the stop sign becoming a redlight with him surrounded in hostile territory says it all. Ray speaks with a forked tongue.
By Anne
June 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Thank you Bosch. Let Ray be a legend in his own mind and feel really good about his manhood. I would hate to see him so frustrated that he grabs his manhood, rushes out the door and blows a softball team away just to make true believers of the rest of us.
By ricochet
June 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
You should keep one thing in mind about your neighbor who keeps a gun in the house. While he’s pulling the trigger on the so called burglar (who is probably a family member getting up for a drink of water) he’s also shooting at YOUR house every time he misses. Bullets don’t stop at his property line; they keep going until they hit something solid enough to stop them, like something or SOMEONE, in your house. I am not a liberal or a conservative, democrat or republican. I see guns for what they are.
Your right to own a gun is one thing; your right to pull the trigger is another.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Well, out of the pool fer the rest of the day ain’t too bad, now banned fer life means having to buy a new moden, delete all cookies, and create a new ID….Been there, done that, George has been kicked out many times from much better and much worse web sites than this one….It is a lot of hassle just so you can spout off, better to follow the rules, sort of, walking on the edge and steping over the line just a little once in a while…..ta really annoy the journalists and english majors, make no effort ta correct ur gramer or spillin….
By James
June 27, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman:
As I said yesterday, we have some severe personality disorders involved here. Act accordingly.
By Steve
June 27, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
911: All operators are busy, please hold and your call will be taken in the order it was received.
In the mean time your children and wife are dead and your next because you couldn’t have a handgun accessible.
Your an idiot if you think that’s a good law.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Anne,
LOL!!! Yeap. Softball teams beware today!
CommunistAJC,
Uh, huh, yeah. You stick with that (as I roll my eyes). One more thing to add to your “liberals suck and should be wiped off the Earth” list - they can be really sarcastic sometimes too.
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
And then you have the guy that shot his neighbor over one too many bags of garbage on the curb. Guns and hotheaded idiots aren’t compatible.
By Abomi Nation
June 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Wait until you have been an intended victim of a car jacking and the only thing that saved your life was a Frozen Chicken on the seat next to you. Happened in Eufaula, AL about 11:00 PM at a stop sign/traffic light. Three of our finest citizens were carrying ball bats but no Frozen Chickens. Rolled down the window, leveled the Frozen Chicken at the first one and almost dropped a dime on this farm animal. They saw the Frozen chicken and yelled, “He got a chicken”, and couldn’t get out there any faster. I carry one in my car at all times and have a concealed Chicken permit. I am a law abiding citizen, not a Frozen Chicken nut whacko, and have the right to protect myself and my family from farm animals who do not have the respect for life and property that us ranchers do. It’s a shame that it has come to this but as soon as there are no farm animals like this out there, I will put Frozen Chicken away. Until then, pass the mashed potatoes.
Btw, tomorrow, I’m going shopping for a Frozen Turkey, much more powerful than a Frozen Chicken.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Hey, look at Neil Bortz, he took a severe personality disorder and made a profitable right wing talk radio career out of a likely lifetime commitment to a mental hospital…
By James
June 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
To GOP’s got to go:
My, my, my. So you’ve seen some blood in your profession. That’s nice. I’ve carried a few men from the field of battle myself.
If I could have a wish some day I think I might just be that for one week (probably just one day) except for me and my loved ones to have every police officer disappear and every gun in the nation disappear. Then I would watch while the brutal masses out there attacked and knifed and clubbed you folks bloddy. That’s all it would take and everyone of you would be out looking for your own gun at the end of my fantasy.
USMC (served proudly)
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
Steve, very few people are saying you shouldn’t have a gun in your home. They just don’t want them in every venue.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
Ricochet, that’s a training issue.
Also, frangible ammunition will break up on drywall but still make a mess of a person.
So that’s an education issue. These things can be overcome. In fact, as a gun owner I think it’s VITAL that we better train and educate gun owners. Too many people buy a gun and just leave it somewhere to be stolen and then when they use it, you’re right, they haven’t practiced so they can’t hit what they aim at.
I would be fine with an affordable, accessible requirement for gun safety and use course. Hell, I’d be for some sort of test to prove proficiency every few years. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
By Bud
June 27, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Steve, have you ever thought of just securing your home? Alarms and dogs are alot more effective than your shaking, adrenaline rushed hand on your manhood.
By Steve
June 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Zeke, that was the law that was overturned that everyone is upset about. The court only exercised common sense.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Man, a dog sure helped Meredith Emerson alright.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
Well, George still thinks the ajc should replace both wooten and bookie with the lovely and available Lara Logan…..giver her both of their salaries combined, plus 100K stock options in Cox Enterprises….
By Bud
June 27, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Jimbo, you can always come up with extreme cases. If you recall, the guy didn’t approach her with force. She would have been caught off guard anyway you look at it. The gun would have been absolutely useless. Go back and look at the facts in that case. They hiked together before he made his move.
By James
June 27, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
To George Washington:
But Boortz combines it with an ability to debate point by point. You can tell the difference in the others who just rant, name calling, etc.
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
My friends had a breakin at their house and 2 ankle biting miniature Pinschers chased off 2 bad guys. Now they have reinforced security with an alarm system and are perfectly safe. I don’t care if you have a gun in your home. I just don’t want it out in public.
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Bosch, Sure will home slice. I’ll be thinking about that as I carry my firearm freely through the streets of the A-T-L. (eyes rolling)
By the way, have you written one thing worth reading besides insults? Didnt think so. Go back to protesting Gitmo.
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
Steve I agree that D.C. law needed to be overturned. I also believe the last law passed in this state should be overturned as well. And one day it will be.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
I will never understand why there is any debate at all on any of these amendments. There is ample documentation of the opinions of virtually ever founding father regarding the declaration of independance, the constitution, and the bill of rights. Regardless of which side you look at (Federalist or Anti-federalist), there is a clear agreement. They both support a person’s right to own guns and other weapons. They also make it very clear that the reason for the amendment is that private ownership of weapons stands as the last bastion against a tyrranical government. You government lovers out there find this hard to believe but its true. Othes make the point that we now have a standing army so we don’t need the militias. Our founding fathers feared a standing army more than they feared armies from other countries Others of you scoff at the prospect of the American citizen being able to stand up to a tank or an F-18, or any of the other sophisticated weaponry the military has. One need only look at Somalia and Iraq to see that our miliary is not invincible. Take away all of our guns and the government would have absolutely nothing stopping them. Don’t believe it? Even Hitler’s first action was the gun control act of 1939 (the model of our federal gun control act of 1968). No doubt our founders would have wanted all of us to have access to the same weapons - again, to keep us on par with the military arm of the government (yes, that’s what they really are - they don’t defend me, they defend the empire). If that meant access to automatic weapons, RPG’s and the like I have no doubt they would have supported it. Every person in Switzerland receives training and has anywhere from a gun to an anti-aircraft weapon at their house or farm. They are “fully armed” and yet their murder rate, etc. is way lower than us. Maybe when your government isn’t setting the example that killing to get what you want is ok has an effect on the population.
The same is true with every other amendment. The founders were very clear on why each amendment was there and they were very clear how to change the constitution if “times had changed.” As stupid as the issue is, even the so-called conservatives realize that it would take an amendment to ban flag burning and to allow the unbridled abolition of habeus corpus by our dictator du jur. Why the so-called liberal progressives think that “majority rules” has replaced the constitution is beyond me.
There should be no reason for these decisions to be 5-4. When this country was founded these decisions would have been 9-0. 9-0 in favor of private property rights, 9-0 in favor of the right to bear arms, 9-0 against any federal laws not called out in the constitution, 9-0 against any un-warranted search or seizure, 9-0 against any federal action based on the “commerce clause,” etc. The entire Supreme Court should be impeached for their inability to uphold the constitution. These folks are just political hacks with an agenda that threatens to set off a civil war. The Supreme court has no authority to legislate. Only the legislative branch does. Its high time our legislative branch realized this and impeached the other two branches for the war crimes and atrocities they have committed, and for the way they have tollerated and even blessed some of the most agregious assaults on the constutition we have ever faced.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
CommunistAJC,
Insults? What? Do I ever write anything worth reading?
Let’s see if I can find some long-winded ridiculous propogandic article about how wingnuts are screwballs and copy and paste it here and try to pass the idea off on my own.
Yeah, right, Chief.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
BTW CommunistAJC,
Simply asking a person not to plagarize material isn’t casting an insult - but the act of plagarism itself and trying to pass off the idea as your own without giving the author credit, is rather insulting and in my opinion, pretty cowardly.
By James
June 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
To Mr. Liberty:
Good Job. I assume you have read Mark Levin’s “Men in Black” and the “Politcally Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” by Kevin Gutzman??
By Rob
June 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Go ahead Communist AJC. Walk those mean streets of the Atl, you and that gun. My guess is we will be reading that some thug took it from you, stuck it up your azz, pulled it out your mouth and beat your brains out with it. We’ll see video at 11:00 of APD getting you out of a pool of blood and stuffing you in a body bag. Now go watch that collection of Death Wish movies that put all those badazz fantasies in your head.
By Don Pike
June 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
So Mr Liberty, what trumps what when gun rights and property rights run head long into each other?
By James
June 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
To Don Pike:
That’s a simple one. “Life” and the right to self-defense should always trump property !
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Don Pike,
If people weren’t keen on being jerks about it there would be no issue.
Cars are an extension of the home so leaving a gun in a car, even on someone’s property is still not on their property. If you see a sign that says “no weapons” leave it in the car under the seat. It’s not the best place to leave it, but you can buy lock boxes that bolt to the frame of your car for better security.
If you’re going to someone’s house then you ask if it’s ok before you carry in. This is all common sense if people would just be sensible about it.
By Don Pike
June 27, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
So in other words James, I shouldn’t have the right to tell you that your gun is not allowed on my property? I guess that makes it real easy for you to blow me away when I tell you not to smoke in my house as well, huh idiot? Guys like you that need a gun everywhere you go are nothing but cowardly lions.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
To Don Pike,
Property rights are the basis of all civilization and society. Nothing trumps them (not even the commerce clause or the civil rights act).
If you own a piece of property and you don’t want someone with a gun coming onto your property then that is your right. If you are an employer and don’t want someone bringing a gun onto your property for work, that is your right. If you own a bar or a restaurant the same thing - but it is your decision, not the government’s. If the building is publically paid for or we are talking about public transportation then your gun rights should apply. I mean we all pay for these things so nobody’s rights should suffer.
But what about my gun when I go into a restaurant? What if they won’t let me? That is their right. Just like it is their right to allow smoking or prohibit it.
They may choose to provide secure storage, as might an employer. If you are not happy with that, then get another job or eat somewhere else. What exactly is the conflict.
If you don’t respect someone’s property rights then what you are saying is that they no longer own the property (and that’s fascism).
Have principles and a backbone. Be prepared to let the owner know how you feel and that you won’t be back until their policy is changed. Who knows, instead of relying on the useless government police, the private business might choose to make you feel safe by hiring their own security.
We all need the right to be consumers and we must exercise those rights as consumers, rather than as whining children running to their mommies and daddies in the state house.
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Rob, Not likely to happen because I’m not a pansy liberal type who gives up anything and everything in the name of political correctness. Only a moron, such as yourself, would wish that law abiding citizens would get shot. You have the same idiot mindset of a democrat. You’re the type that hopes a soldier would get killed in order for a democrat to obtain power.
Bosch, I guess the only way I can make you understand is to put it in kindergarten perspective. If only the AJC had more sophisticated technology. I could post a chart to show you that I wasn’t trying to pass off someone else’s writing as my own. I’m also pretty sure that you are the type of person who stops to ask a stop sign why it wants to stop cars. Not very bright are you Botch?
By Don Pike
June 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
Jimbo I can agree with that. Therefore, any property or business owner should be able to prohibit guns from being carried inside his home or business establishment. I can agree with that. It’s these morons that think they have to have a gun on them in a restaurant or wherever are the one’s I disagree with. A business is property and the owner should be able to keep guns out of it should he not?
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
Bosch, I’m betting you’re either an ambulance chasing lawyer or a Barista at Starbucks. Am I right? Exactly how did I plagiarize? 1: I did not say that I wrote it. 2: This is a blog and people can post ANY comment that they want. As long as Nanny Bookman doesn’t use his nazi style police work to take the comment down.
By James
June 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
To Don Pike:
1) Name calling gets you no where.
2) What it means is that if I am waling down the street and someone attacks me with a knife and I jump over your fence with a gun to try to get away and he follows and I shoot him then I had the right to be on your property because it was self-defense.
It also means if I come to visit you in your home and you tell me no guns allowed and to leave then I must leave or you can tresspass me under Georgia law.
Good Grief ………
P.S. I would have loved to have had you in my cowardly Marine Corps platoon in Vietnam.
By Don Pike
June 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
James, are you really that papranoid? Using your logic because a bear was seen a mile from my house I therefore need to arm myself with something powerful enough to drop said bear and keep it in my hand everytime I go into my yard just in case that bear should be lying in wait to attack me. Are you that big a coward James? Maybe the answer for you James, since everyone is out to knife you, rape you, rob you, steal your car, rip your groceries out of your hand at Kroger maybe you should just barricade yourself inside your home. And by the way James. In case you don’t know. You’re not in Vietnam anymore. Maybe a trip to a VA shrink can help you with that.
By James
June 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
To Mr. Liberty and Don Pike:
But …… a restaurant doesn’t have the right to search you unless they search EVERYONE and that would be bad for business. It’s not against the law to take a gun into a restaurant only “maybe” against their policy ……… :o)
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Did that fake lawyer, JMBLAW die or go to prison? I haven’t seen a post by him, her, or it in many a day now….
By ricochet
June 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Training issue? That is the last thing the IRA wants! Why is the IRA against any type of requirements to gun ownership? How many people are “trained” when they put down that money for a handgun? NONE, I suspect. Any idiot with a valid drivers license can buy a handgun any time they want. A person walking around in public with a gun strapped on their side, that is not a police officer, reminds me of some kind of wannabe gunslinger with a low IQ.
By JeepersCreepers
June 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
CommunistAJC; Wow man I wish I could have said it like that. You are right on! But all of you with long explanations and stating fact after fact, remember the liberals are drive by’s they do not have that kind of attention span and can not debate! However, your comments do me good because it re-enforces what I know to be true also.
Rob: You an idiot…thugs do not attack people with guns nor would they be so willing to attack without a gun if they suspected people have a weapon. But they probably carry a weapon as it is…because the liberal laws in Atlanta only protect criminals and prior to the Supreme Court ruling only criminals would have guns. I know this is long statement and you probably already dropped out.
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Hey Don! Give James a break. The way he keeps bringing up Marine this and Marine that explains it all. He was one of McNamara’s 100,000.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
well, George always carries a couple throw down weapons, just in case the bad guys are unarmed….
By James
June 27, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
To Don Pike:
Your something else Don but that’s o.k. It’s a free country.
Let’s just say my 34 years in law enforcement :
1) Doesn’t make me a coward 2) Means I know just how dangerous it really is out there 3) Means I am willing not only to protect myself and family but any stranger in need 4) I wish you well and certainly hope that you or your loved ones are never victims of a horrible crime.
P.S. Do you understand the property rights vs. self-dense rights now? That was your original question.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Don Pike, they can. They just have too put up a sign. American Signature Furniture up at Gwinnett Place Mall has one as an example.
I’ve carried in restaurants before and I intend on carrying on MARTA after July 1st because if I don’t have to I’d rather no take the gun off. The less exposure it gets the better off everyone is. It’s not about “OOOH I can carry in a restaurant” for me. It’s more like “ok, well now I’m not flashing a piece as I lock it in the trunk.” MY fiancee’ is looking forward to July 1st because then I’m the DD most of the time by default.
Ricochet, I’ve had extensive practice in the use of firearms and their safe handling. I store my firearms in a very large, very heavy safe.
I saw a statistic that 50,000+ people get concealed carry permits every year.. tell me.. where are the casualties? Where is the blood in the street? Your screechy hyperbole (like those big words?) doesn’t pan out.
Someone must be doing something right.
By Steve
June 27, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
Bud, Dogs and alarms are fine until the crazy adrenaline rushed crack head gets inside after he killed your dogs.
And the alarm company is slower than 911 after they call you to see if its really an emergency and the cops respond with a low priority because of all of the false alarms they get.
Obviously you have never been in a life threatening situation.
By Don Pike
June 27, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
By James
June 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
To Mr. Liberty and Don Pike:
But …… a restaurant doesn’t have the right to search you unless they search EVERYONE and that would be bad for business. It’s not against the law to take a gun into a restaurant only “maybe” against their policy ……… :o)
No James. It is their right as a property owner to prohibit you from carrying it into their establishment. If you violate their “policy” of no guns inside you can be ejected from the establishment and if you do not abide you are trespassing. Therefore James, you violate the law. If a sign is posted in the parking lot saying no guns allowed inside and you take one in it is a violation of the trespassing laws. Just because you don’t get caught doesn’t mean you haven’t broken the law. But anyway it all goes back to you being such a paranoid coward that you have to have a gun in a restaurant to feel safe. Grow a set James. That’s all you really need.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
Also, Ricochet, I’m not a member of the NRA, I don’t particularly get along with them, but one thing they do right is training. It’s comprehensive, relatively inexpensive and available to anyone with an interest.
Coincidentally, the IRA also trained it’s people very well in the use and construction of weapons.. so I’m not sure where you got your ideas.
By susan
June 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
The June 26, 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Disctrict of Columbia vs. Heller interested me so much I decided to go online and pull up the actual decision and read it.
Justice Scalia argued for the majority. His argument gave voice to much of what I understand the law of the country to be based upon. But after reading his argument and then reading the desenting argument by Justice Stevens I realized that the situation demanded further scrutiny.
“The Second Amendment provides: “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.”
That is the staement that is being argued by both sides.
Justice Stevens, in his disenting opinion makes a very clear case that the right described by the 2nd Amendment was clearly understood to be a militia based right and not an individual right.
He says,“Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations.”
The court is making law and that is not the court’s purpose. Legislatures make laws in both the states and the U.S. Congress.
Legislatures had the right to govern civilian use and misuse of firearms.
With this decision by the Neo-conservative Justices this country’s democratic principles are being erased and replaced with government support of private corporations.
Our democracy doesn’t look after the welfare of the People anymore, it looks after the welfare of Corporate America.
The radical right leaning Supreme Court is what John Dean(personal attorney for then President Richard Nixon, and author of Worse Than Watergate) has described as his greatest fear of the influence of George W. Bush & company.
Let’s liberate this country from the disaster of the Bush machine before what is the best of this country disappears forever!
By JeepersCreepers
June 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Jay: What kind of handgun do you own? I know working for AJC could make a lot of enemies. LOL
By James
June 27, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
To Mr. Liberty:
No. It’s the same as “no shirt, no shoes, no service”. You walk in and they have to ask you to leave. You only “tresspass” legally if you don’t leave when asked to. The sign only means they are giving you the rules. Technically, a police officer has to formally “tresspass” you.
By GOPs got to go
June 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Patience James,
I know your Sergeant Major taught you that out in the Nam Jungle. You know when a girl is busy holding pressure on the many GSW’s (medical Jargon there Jimmy) inflicted on the masses in the ATL, blogs have to wait their turn.
One of my biggest problems with the mindset of Armed to the Teeth people is their children are too. And if you think they can not get their hands on the weapons , then you are VERY naïve. Every other month it seems Little Johnny is shooting up his school because his daddy James was a mean SOB and never hugged him. Problem is little Johnny has so much rage at Daddy that he wants to kill little Susie, Jane and Dick. As a matter of fact little Johnny has been planning this whole thing. Too bad daddy was so busy and did not seem to notice that Johnny had given up his look a like Jar head haircut and had turned all Gothic on him. Long trench coat wearing Gothic. Next thing you know my liberal kid is lying in a pool of blood at Middle School.
Hey Communist AJC,
I do not ever remember killing a baby, mocking God, smoking pot, or reading Lenin or Stalin.
I have read Tolstoy though, does that count?
And Jimmy, 2 years in the USMC is not really that long. I served 22 with my Major Dad. Still have found memories of him is his dress blues. He was the one keeping your dumbass from getting killed in Nam.
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
How funny. CommunistAJC talks about the lack of technology and can’t even link to an article.
Yeah, Chief, keep going, but next time you want to plagarize someone’s work and pass it off as your own, try this:
Look up^^^^^ right above the “comments:” box that you type your comments in (are you following me? Easy enough for ya’ so far?) and follow the directions that say “link.”
Bwa! And you call me dense.
I am not a lawyer, nor a barista at Starbucks - but I LOVE their coffee! Plain black coffee though, none of that sugar and creme and syrup crap they put in there - that’s gross, and their sandwiches are pretty good too!
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Uh Susan, Except that Justice Stevens is incredibly wrong.
How can it be a collective right? Is the right to free speech, worship and peaceable assembly a collective right?
Is the right to an attorney a collective right?
Is the right to the security of your property, person, and effects a collective right?
I mean it’s nice and all that you were so easily swayed since nothing else in the bill of rights is meant to limit the rights of the people. The bill of rights is meant to limit the powers of the government. So you’re telling that in 10 amendments on this one mysterious one is a collective right that limits the people? Seriously, and no offense but, how could it be any simpler?
Besides the fact that the mention of “a free state” is ambiguous and at best would probably refer to “the states” as opposed to “the state”.
No, I’m pretty sure that Justice Stevens is a crummy lawyer and a crappy justice.
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Sorry I missed a few posts -
But Abomi Nation @ 11:18 -
I laughed so hard I almost peed myself. That was absolutely awesome!
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Uh Susan, Except that Justice Stevens is incredibly wrong.
How can it be a collective right? Is the right to free speech, worship and peaceable assembly a collective right?
Is the right to an attorney a collective right?
Is the right to the security of your property, person, and effects a collective right?
I mean it’s nice and all that you were so easily swayed since nothing else in the bill of rights is meant to limit the rights of the people. The bill of rights is meant to limit the powers of the government. So you’re telling that in 10 amendments on this one mysterious one is a collective right that limits the people? Seriously, and no offense but, how could it be any simpler?
Besides the fact that the mention of “a free state” is ambiguous and at best would probably refer to “the states” as opposed to “the state”.
No, I’m pretty sure that Justice Stevens is a crummy lawyer and a crappy justice.
By James
June 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
To Mr. Bookman:
I think Don Pike needs to go for today. Abusive, name calling, not able to debate points, etc.
By Tommy
June 27, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Here we go again! First Ray and his tall tale. Now we have James claiming to have “34 years in law enforcement” trying to add substance to his argument. If James was ever a cop I’m Barack Obama. The majority of cops that I have ever known will tell you straight up that pistol packing wannabes just add to the problem. But giving James benefit of the doubt, a trained peace officer carrying a piece is drastically different than some bozo going down to the store buying a gun and all of a sudden he’s Marshall Dillon. A bunch of Barney Fifes packing guns is the last thing we need. That’s what scares the hell out of me.
By CommunistAJC
June 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Bosch, You’ve got the IQ of a carrot. The AJC has problems with posting web addresses. You of all people should know this from your previous attempt at posting a site that didn’t exist. Dense? Nope just smart enough to know an $#%hole when I see one. Or in your case read one. Don’t forget to put a tight lid on your next cup of coffee. You wouldn’t want to get fired for burning a customer.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Oh good lord Bosch, way to fear monger. So since Columbine something like 240 kids were have been killed in big time active shooter events. The likelihood of your kids getting killed in a school shooting is so incredibly slim it’s even more slim that you getting killed by a gun (only .0001% of the population a year dies from gun shot wounds and 40% of those are suicides, so you do the math)
Hey you know who hindered the first major school shooting? You know, the one in the sixties in Austin? It was citizens with guns! You know who stopped the Appalachian school of law shooting? citizens with guns. You know who stopped the violence in the Pearl High School shooting in Mississippi? A vice principal with a gun.
So.. Your point is a terrible one. Your fear mongering works well with the average american because the average american is.. well.. let’s just say we as a society could do well to read more.
By James
June 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
To GOPs got to go:
1) Name calling will make Mr. Bookman upset.
2) More kids are killed in bicycle accidents alone each year than firearms not to mention drownings, sticking forks in unsafe light sockets, etc. You should know that.
3) If your Dad was a Major (even in the infantry) in Nam he never spent the night in the bush. They always (when we did see them in the field) went back out on the last helicopter.
4) Semper Fi.
By Steve
June 27, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
Susan, If that was the case all we would have to do is form a militia to protect our rights. Look up the definition before you respond.
By Mark RIcht
June 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
For a minute I thought I was game tracking a football game. Cowardly Lion College vs Common Sense U. Damn! Oh, by the way James. You want Don Pike to go because he’s pounding sand up your Cowardly Lion Colleges butt.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Actually, if you’re a male between 17 and 45 you’re in the unorganized militia as described by the militia act of 1903.
By Ollie
June 27, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this
Gotta go to the mailbox folks. Where’s my gun? LMAO!
By Token Gringo
June 27, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this
City people prefer more gun control? That’s where you need a gun the most! When 9/11 happened, many of my liberal friends admitted comfort knowing that if they were truly afraid for their lives they could come over to my house where I keep firearms for my enjoyment and protection of my family. I don’t make choices for you regarding your hobbies, so don’t force your opinion on me. It’s my gun, it’s my choice!
By James
June 27, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
To Mark Richt:
No - because it’s the rules for reasoned debate on the AJC blogs.
Got to go for awhile. Be back in about two hours if you can wait that long.
By Sam Shoemaker
June 27, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
Fear mongering Jimbo? Is it not you that has been in here all morning arguing that if you ain’t packin you ain’t safe? You mi amigo are the one uing fear as your primary selling point. But obviously only you and James are so afraid that you have to have a gun at all times to shoot all those ghosts in the shadows waiting to jump out and get you. Hey Jimbo. Hey James! BOO!!!
By Rob
June 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
You are absolutely right Token Gringo. Own all the guns you want. Just keep them confined to your house and car and all of us will be safer.
By Ollie
June 27, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
Folks I just got back from the mailbox. What a trip! Got jumped by a little black kitten on the way out. On the way back got attacked by these big bees. I’m real sorry about the kitten. But folks it’s a big bad scary world out there. Thank God I had my gun. That kitten might have killed me!
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
Actually Sam, what I said is that I manage risk. That in addition to having insurance policies and a spare tire and a fire extinguisher (none of which I’ve ever used by the way) I also have a gun on me.. and usually a knife but that’s more of a utility thing. The gun I carry is a P3AT from KelTec. You look it up and you tell me if I’m some big bad gunslinger wannabe. I have guns that would fit that bill, but they aren’t for carry, they’re for fun. I generally feel safe outside of my house with or without a gun. It’s not that big a deal to me but it’s part of my kit, keys, wallet, knife, cellphone, tiny gun. shrug People can do whatever they want. They can carry or not and I don’t judge them for not carrying. It’s clearly not right for everyone. It is right for me. I don’t think anything I’ve said insists that you’re in grave danger if you don’t carry. In fact, I think if anything the numbers I’ve quoted have pretty clearly shown how likely you are to be involved in a crime or in a crime with a gun (about .33% since a million or so crimes are reported a year and that’s all crimes, by the way only a third of those involve a gun and only 2/3s of all homicides). So no, I don’t really fear monger. I state my case using numbers and logic. I try not to call anyone names (and I fail sometimes) and I try to be civil (which a lot you people make really difficult).
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
You guys have nothing but strawmen.. what is that? A big scary pile of strawmen? Strawmen and name calling, what is it with you people?
By GOPs got to go
June 27, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
James,
Who is calling you a name?
He may have left in a helicopter. He did come home with a mean case of foot rot though. Funny, he never talked about his 44 years of service, 22 in the USMC, 22 in law enforcement incessantly as if he had single-handedly taken out Hanoi.
Tell your stats on dead school children to their parents. I would bet they would have a thing or two to say about your arsenal
By MC
June 27, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
You know folks. I worked and lived in Mexico City for 6 years and Rio de Janiero for 3. And you are right Jimbo. It’s all about managing risk and using common sense. And I managed risk without one time having to carry in gun in those 9 years. Prior to that I carried a gun professionally. That career is over now and since the day it was over, no matter where I have been I have felt safe WITHOUT a gun. Yes. It’s about common sense and managing risk. If you’re good at that you don’t need a gun.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Hell ladies and gentlemen, I won’t even argue that concealed carry prevents crime in any sort of statistically measurable way.. There’s nothing that suggests that. But nor is there anything that suggests that strict gun control prevents crime either. In fact the CDC study on the subject came up inconclusive either way. But for me personally I would live in a city that decided I could be trusted with a firearm for my own defense. I’ve lived six blocks from City Hall East and I read the news. I’m not really interested in handing my life over to APD, or anyone for that matter.
The most interesting thing I’ve found digging through numbers is that you’re more likely to be murdered in Washington DC than in the Gaza Strip. Figure that one out
By GOPs got to go
June 27, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Ollie,
I hope you popped a dime on that kitten. You need an rapid fire Uzi for that pack of Bees though.
Maybe if you have a large frozen piece of meat you can spin very,very fast and take out those killer bees getting tomorrow’s mail.
Be careful,
it’s a big scary world out there.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
James.
I don’t remember making any comments as to the particulars of tresspass law. There is a certain truth to the fact that you must be informed of someone’s wishes or conditions for entry before one can be considered in violation (unlike of course the government who passes so many laws that we are all like committing felonies just typing on our keyboards right now). And yes, you could easily go against someone’s wishes without their knowing if carrying concealed. The other reality that everyone should consider is that such a requirement has its own consequences.
Consider the homeowning liberal wuss who wants to make sure that no guns ever enter his property. He chooses the solution that only works in liberal utopia - he posts a big sign on his lawn that says “this is a gun-free zone. No guns allowed” Now he never has to risk having his space tainted by the presence of the devil’s instrument of death. This of course will keep out all the gun-toting criminals. The same of course will work at the entrance of the jewelry stores, banks, etc.
What I am getting at is that if we actually had a free society that wasn’t so afraid of inanimate metal and composite objects, and of course maybe one that was a little more civilized, everyone would likely just acknowledge the fact that everyone might be carrying a weapon on themselves and accomodate accordingly. For most that would be to just ignore the fact, and for others that would likely be to provide a safe and secure place to store the weapon while visiting the establishment. For others it would be to maybe be even more heavily armed than you think everyone else is. It would likely be a rare and stupid thing to advertise the complete lack of guns. Just look at where all the mass shootings take place now - schools (you remember, those gun-free zones - don’t get me started on the whole ‘drug free” zone issue).
Guns can be used to kill others. Ideas can kill even more than guns can.
By JeepersCreepers
June 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
By susan June 27, 2008 1:00 PM “With this decision by the Neo-conservative Justices this country’s democratic principles are being erased and replaced with government support of private corporations.”
The judges did not make law like you said dipstick! They interpreted the constitution. Making laws (like the liberal did) is like the privacy act, abortion rights, and eliminating the 2nd amendment.
By Ollie
June 27, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Ya’ll need to listen to James and Jimbo. That kitten coulda kilt me. And I been thinkin about that bear the man was talkin about this mornin. My 9 did a job on that kitten, but a bear? I think I better get on down to the pawn shop and see if I can find me one of them Dessart Eagle .44 auto mags. Today a kitten. Tomorrow just might be a bear. But that bear ain’t gonna get me. And I’m sure everytime my neighbors hear me poppin off some rounds they feel real safe to have me as a neighbor. Gotta go folks. I have to bury the kitten before Rose finds out I kilt it. She’d come after me with that broom of hers and I’d have to blow her away. But maybe if I just point it at her she will go away, huh Ray?
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
MC,
That’s fine, in my experience it doesn’t matter how good you are 99% of the time, it only takes once to throw that record away. For me, once is too much. When I was a single guy I could run or fight and it didn’t matter as much. My fiancee is not going to be able to outdistance or outfight a determined assailant. I didn’t even have a permit until we started dating. Like I said, it’s a matter of personal choice. If we can agree to disagree I’m totally ok with that. I’m for reasonable gun regulation (actually reasonable regulation guys..).
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Ollie, look up “strawman argument”. You’re argument is so lame they made up a whole term to describe it.
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
Ollie,
I agree with GOPs got to go -
Next time pack a frozen chicken! They really are the way to go. Go to the gun store, get yourself a holster, and then head off to Cosco for some frozen chicken. Stick the chicken in that holster and you are good to go!
No self-resepected kitten is gonna mess with a chicken-packing mail-checker.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Well folks, while the chattering class was debating how many 9mm’s will sit on the head of a pin, our pals at Delta just robbed us: All those frequent flier miles we have been booking at Delta are now gonna cost at least 50 bucks per trip in fuel surcharges, and if they git away with this, who knows what will be next, a 300 buck fuel surcharge…..The deal was a free flight for x number of miles, but delta changed that number to, then limited the number of frequent flier seats on each flight….I say we should all boycott delta until the fuel surcharge goes away….Do you remember the fuel surcharges at hotels when natural gas rates and electricity rates went up? The added them onto your already booked room rate, and only removed them if you complained…
By Lois
June 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Hey Jimbo,
Look up “you’re” in a dictionery. It means “You are”
As in You are so lame you can’t even spell. I sure hope you don’t own a gun.
By George Washington
June 27, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
opps, I forgot to copy the articel from the nyt: Delta Adds Fuel Fee to Frequent-Flier Tickets Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share Digg Facebook Mixx Yahoo! Buzz Permalink
By MICHELINE MAYNARD Published: June 28, 2008 In the latest fee to hit the airline industry, Delta Air Lines said Friday that it planned to begin charging a fuel surcharge of up to $50 for booking frequent-flier tickets under its awards program.
Delta is not the first airline to charge a fee for previously free tickets, but it is specifically attributing the step to the soaring cost of jet fuel.
The new fee takes effect on tickets booked on or after Aug. 15. Delta will charge a $25 fuel surcharge on tickets booked within the United States, and $50 on tickets booked for travel elsewhere, including the Caribbean, the United States Virgin Islands, Latin America and other international destinations.
Jet fuel prices have risen 83.6 percent in the last year, according to the International Air Transport Association, the global industry’s trade group. Airlines have responded with a variety of fees and charges for a range of previously free features, from checking luggage to beverages.
Jeff Robertson, managing director of Delta’s SkyMiles program, said the increase in fuel was “causing considerable financial stress to Delta’s business.”
He called the step “a difficult but essential decision in the face of record-high fuel costs.”
“We hope this is temporary,” Mr. Robertson said, “and should fuel prices subside from current levels, we will re-evaluate this surcharge.”
Mr. Robertson also said Delta would introduce a “new, multi-tiered award program” in the next 60 days but gave no details. Industry analysts have predicted that airlines may increase the number of miles required for a frequent-flier ticket.
Many carriers are grounding planes and eliminating flights in an effort to stave off their higher fuel costs, meaning that they have fewer seats. Airlines control their inventories of free seats, and generally do not disclose how many are available on a given flight.
Earlier this month, American Airlines began charging $5 to book frequent-flier tickets. Meanwhile, US Airways will charge up to a $50 processing fee for frequent-flier tickets booked on or after Aug. 6.
By GOPs got to go
June 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this
Now I know why Jay’s little cut out picture in the corner is always laughing…
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Oh no Lois! A TYPO ON THE INTERNET? OH MY GOD..
I hope you don’t have any children.
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Well, that’s it then. I say we unite. Frozen Chickens at dawn. War on Delta!
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Also, it’s spelled correctly. It’s a usage mistake. You’re (is that better?) not even good at being anal.
By Ollie
June 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Huh Jimbo! That kitten skeered the hell out of me, so I blew him away. Strawman? I ain’t no wizard of oz you dork.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
Also it would be:
As in, “You are so lame you can’t even spell”.
and I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 guns.
By Lois
June 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
Oh, ouch. That one hurt.
Now what in the wide world would you possibly need with 20 guns?!!
By MC
June 27, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
So what is reasonable Jimbo? You seem to be argueing that the only reasonable law is one that allows you to carry a gun anywhere you wish. I’m just saying a gun is not neccessary everywhere. My wife and daughter feel safe in Mexico City because they know what is safe and what isn’t. Some of the things you are advocating are the very things that make dead heros when that 1% of the time finally comes around. Do the rest of these people a favor. Don’t get them killed. Real security doesn’t come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from a brain. I’m 56 years old now Jimbo and I still don’t think I need a gun to be safe even when we go to our house in Mexico City.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
What the hell does Delta and frozen chickens have to do with the 2nd amendment?
Can we try and stay on topic??
By Connie
June 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Jimbo, just where is it that you take your fiance where there is such danger? Maybe she should get a safer man.
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
MrLiberty:
Delta doesn’t, but as for the Frozen Chickens, those are very important to the discussion. Read all comments above.
Plus it’s called humor. Try to find some.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
MC,
I appreciate your opinion on the subject and your respectful tone, but I must disagree with you. Also you seem to confuse my comments with others. I work in security. It’s my career and I’ve spent time lugging a SAW professionally. I get what you’re saying, but I feel differently. Fortunately the law supports both of our perspective and there’s no reason they can’t co-exist.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Uh Connie, that would be Atlanta. The country’s 17th most dangerous city. Just like you never know when you’re going to get a flat tire, you never know when you’re going to walk into a bad situation.
By the way Connie, didn’t even carry until I started dating her. Got my permit because she asked me to carry in Birmingham and I couldn’t without a GA permit. Birmingham, where she lived at the time, is the 6th most dangerous city in the country.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Well I’ll tell you Lois, I don’t need them at all. Like many people in the United States I’ve advanced beyond the level of subsistence farming or hunting and gathering and I have things called wants.
I have hunting arms and shotguns and I also collect war relics. There’s no need for me to possess these things, just as there’s no need for me to have 42” television or for most of my neighbors to have BMW’s and Mercedes.. I wanted these things because I enjoy history and particularly military history and I like target shooting so this allows me to combine those interests into a hobby that I find restful and diverting.
I get real itchy when people in this country of all places ask me why I need something.
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
I like Jimbo’s percentage analogy. So let me tell you about the last pie chart I saw referencing citizens using firearms to defend themselves. 91% of the time the good citizen winds up going to jail because of unreasonable or illegal use of a firearm. If they kill someone or seriously injure somoeone they do time. 91% of the time folks. 6% of the time they get killed or seriously injured by the bad guy. 2% of the time the bad guy loses and the citizen gets to go home no questions asked. The last thing this country needs is more untrained gun toters on our streets. Why in the world do you think police officers get extensive training before given a gun and authorized to make split second decisions before using deadly force. Does anybody on this blog really, in their heart want everyone that can put up the money for a gun out on the street with it. I realize that most of you tough talkers in here think you are top of the line gunslingers. You’re not. And even if one or two of you are, does your common sense not tell you that the ones that aren’t are as big a threat to you as the bad guys. Folks real security is not guaranteed by a gun. Guns in the home are one thing. When untrained people take them into the street it is another altogether.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
Anyway, you crazy kids have a good evening. I’m going to go take in a concert (I won’t be packing by the way) and then meet some friends for dinner.
By Jimbo, THE FIRST
June 27, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
Man, I am moving to Vermont.
By Lois
June 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Thank you APD Officer.
That was an excellent post and I agree whole-heartedly, that I do not want some John Wayne wannabe toting a gun for his “safety” anywhere around me. I beleive we have a police force for a reason.
If citizens are allowed to carry handguns into public places, then a requirement for a license should be training. Especially safety training. Yes, I know the criminals don’t have real training, but they have shot enough people…
By Clever Shrew
June 27, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
To: What do you say to a woman with two black eyes? Nuthin’, ya already told her twice…..
Can I make one of those to shoot frozen chicken? Then it wouldn’t be illegal, right?
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
One more thing folks and then I’m through for the day. Why is it that so many police officers, on duty, and off, actually working in some of these “dangerous” cities in an entire career never even unholster their guns in the line of duty? It’s simple. Regardless of what those that exploit the fear of others say, it isn’t Dodge City out there. And where it is Dodge City I will wager none of you will ever go there. Use common sense people and you will be safe. When you are the victim of a crime use common sense to survive it. Don’t get yourself killed being a hero or a butthead. Your wallet, your jewelry, your car. None of it is worth losing your life over. Tough talk sounds good and impresses like minded people telling war stories in a bar. You know the ones I’m talking about. They kill 12 packs just to watch them die.
By Lois
June 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Sorry to make you itchy, Jimbo.
Please don’t shoot me. I want to live!
By Bosch
June 27, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
APD Officer,
Spot on. And to answer your question? Um, no. I certainly do not want John Wayne wannabes out in public with a gun.
I have a relative who is a police officer and he has told me the exact same thing.
I haven’t commented today on this issue because to me, this is like the abortion issue - waaaayyyy tooo intense, and I’ve covered this topic before.
I enjoy the heated exchanges and p** off plagaristic conservatives!
By Br. Ruger
June 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Justice Stevens’ dissent is severely flawed and it is scary to think that one more dissenter would have effectively repealed the second amendment. Stevens’ premise is that the 2nd states that the ‘right’ extends to only bone fide miltia members to store the weapons of war within their homes to to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the state/federal government in defense of what those governments dictate. The absurdity of a ‘right not to be infringed’ declared in the Constitution to apply to service in a bone fide military organization is hard to comprehend. Why would the Framers need to guarantee the right of someone in a combat miltia the ‘right’ to be in a combat militia fighting? Does that then mean that you have a right to be in a militia if you so want that cannot be infringed? First let’s ask who was the militia? At the time it was ordinary, able citizens who voluntarily formed defensive units. They provided their own weapons. Yet Stevens equates them to State National Guards under the direction of the governor. Would this then mean that Guardsmen can ‘keep’ their weapons of war at their homes? Would this then include mortars, TOWs, Bradleys & M60-A2’s? Or, if it truly only applies to militias, then folks in the Michigan and other militias should have the right to keep & bear all manner of offensive & defensive weapons including Stingers, Tomahawks & MRVs. If only Guardsmen have the ‘right not to be infringed’ to store war weaponry at their homes and to fight in active combat for their country, what about the NAVY, ARMY, AF & Marines? What would these guardsman be allowed to fight for……perhaps only things that Justice Stevens sanctioned……perhaps a women’s right to choose (abortion on demand)? The militias could shoot abortion protesters. Maybe the ‘rights’ of the enemy combatants to go before a US judge? How about forced school busing? Or better yet, enforce the elimination of ‘hate speech’ and the implementation of the ‘fairness doctrine’. But Stevens does not have to worry about being patently ridiculous, he’s a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life so he can be as dumb as a box of hammers and we can’t do anything about it.
By James
June 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
To GOP’s got to go:
Who is calling you a name?
1) “Dumb A*, Mean SOB, Coward” but that’s o.k. I’ve been called worse.
2) It’s sounds as if your Dad is no longer living. I’m truly sorry to hear that.
3) I have talked with Medal of Honor winners who talk all day about their experiences and others who never do - just like your father chose to do. It depends on a lot of individual factors. Since you weren’t there, you wouldn’t understand.
4) I’m proud to have served my country and I believe if your father was sitting between us he would have something to say to you.
God bless ………..
By Doug Edwards
June 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Someone calling you one of McNamara’s 100,000 isn’t calling you a name James. Just telling it like it is.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
APD Officer I’m going to have to ask you to cite the source for this mysterious pie chart I’ve never heard of that and it matches no statistics I’ve ever seen.
It’s not that I wouldn’t trust Atlanta’s finest, but some of your officers lie to get warrants or to cover up their husband’s kiddie porn habits.. so you’ll understand if I’m a bit skeptical.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
Maybe Mr. APD officer could comment on the Supreme Court ruling that says that the police have no obligation to protect anyone individually. That basically leaves me to protect me and I am damn fine with that.
As for John Wayne, one need only look at the ranks of every police department in the country to see where some of the real “gung ho” wackos are. These days most cops are former military or military police. In the past, police were “peace officers” and now they are law enforcement. A subtle thing that spells the difference between a warning and 5 officers with plungers in a NYC police station bathroom.
Police don’t want the average Joe armed because it means that they might not just back down in the face of police brutality. Then they have the audacity to say how bad and violent the streets have gotten while not having the courage to call for the only sensible policy that would make everyone in america safer - to end the war on drugs completely and to treat drug abuse as the medical - not criminal - problem it is.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
Lois, no one is worth going to prison for. So.. pfft.
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
DOJ Jimbo. Bear in mind this is for use of guns outside the home. Inside the house it is vastly different statistically.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
APD is that for the state of Georgia or nationally? Because Texas sort of bends that one all to hell and the few instances I’ve seen in the news here were clean shoots.
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
MrLiberty, obviously that hasn’t trickled down to the street. My primary responsibility is to protect you to the best of my ability when you are on the street. In your home you bear a greater burden for that. So as for that SCOTUS decree I’ve never heard of it.
By James
June 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
To Doug Edwards:
And how about the 58,000 on that wall in D.C. Are they in that same category? 17,000+ were draftees.
You should be ashamed but I know you are not. That’s the tragic part.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Its also a little disingenous of mr APD to mouth off about not unholstering a weapon (Man’s got to know his limitations…Dirty Harry)
He is carrying and everyone knows it.
He has backup and everyone knows it.
Just cooperate and everything will be fine. Don’t fight back. Do what your attacker says.
This was the same kind of crap advice that everyone in the 9-11 planes followed. Passive sheep is all our government wants us to be (excuse me - NEEDS US TO BE).
Mr. APD’s statistics are horribly flawed.
Here’s a couple with more relevance to the discussion:
Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)
In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.” (16c)
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)
all from: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
And by the way, one need not even show your gun to stop a potential assailant. One certainly doesn’t need to fire it. In most cases the knowledge of the presence of the gun is all that it takes.
And for those of you that oppose concealed carry laws, you should be thanking ever single person who has won back that right and who carries. Thanks to them (not a single one of whom has every been on a wild killing rampage) you are far safer. The fact that anyone around you might have a gun on them helps to deter criminals from ever attacking you.
Your welcome. Glad we could do our part. The least you could do is stop being so combative over the whole thing. If you’re too stupid to understand the logic, just be thankful the whole thing works in your favor without you having to do anything.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Here’s what I found: On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft.
1992 was a long time ago, but it was also the peak of violent crime before the 13 year decline from 1992-2005 that we enjoy today.
Also: Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the weapon.
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes—including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent—contribute to the victims’ injury outcomes.
Also: *In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987 and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms. Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)
Offenders shot at victims in 17% of handgun crimes, 1987-92.
This is most interesting: Shot at victim 16.6% Hit victim 3.0 Missed victim 13.6 Nongunshot injury 1.6 No physical injury 12.0
Didn’t shoot at victim 83.4% Other attack/attempt 19.9 Verb. threat of attack 15.4 Weapon present 46.8 Other threat .8 Unknown action .5
look at the hit to miss ratio.. This likely includes police? looks like more than citizens need to bone up.
That’s what I was able to find.. it’s old but probably still pretty relevant. It doesn’t really support your numbers but it doesn’t not support them either.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
764,000? That’s 50+% of all crimes in the country. I find that number to be suspect.
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
Jimbo I know you are dead set on having your gun no matter where you are, what time it is, or how little sense it makes. If you go to an event in Atlanta there are UCs in the crowd. The gravest threat you face are pickpockets and purse snatchers. Now if you in all your bravado wander off behind the Georgia Dome to buy crack or for whatever reason you have for being in any area you know you don’t belong in. All I know Jimbo is when I work UC and something happens my badge comes out around my neck. When I encounter you with a gun in your hand and nothing to tell me you’re a good guy not too many good outcomes are generated from that. Who are the bad guys and how do I tell? All I see is trouble and a gun if not your already dead body. And what if you just happen to turn that gun just slightly in my direction Jimbo? Nothing good I can guarantee you. And what if in your adrenaline fueled state of terror you kill me? They call that lethal injection I think. Jimbo please. Defend your home and do yourself a favor. Leave the piece at home or in the car. You’ll live longer. Don’t be a 6%er or 91%er. I hope I have given you a scenario that even you can comprehend. Most others do. The last thing I need or any other cop needs is come around a corner and you have a gun in your hand. Bad day for all guaranteed.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
Here you go APD:
Maybe all of you could benefit from reading this:
U.S. Supreme Court DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Respondents’ failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father’s violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 194-203.
(a) A State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Pp. 194-197.
Whether you want to listen to a court decision of just plain reality, the fact is that there cannot be a police officer everywhere nor do I think any of us want that or want to pay for that. Personal protection from criminals and the government (but I repeat myself) is a god-given right that is protected from being taken away supposedly by the unanimous adoption of the constitution and its amendments by all the individual states of america. Let us hope for more decisions based on liberty. They are sorely overdue.
By Zeke
June 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
MrLiberty you disgust me. Why don’t you go somewhere and play with your gun. Get it punk?
Anytime someone comes in here that actually has some sense you redneck wannabes come unglued. You are a prime eaxample of someone that needs to stick to killing 12 packs and leave the real work to professionals. And Jimbo, where did you get your stats. The NRA website. Gee, I really believe them. But Jimbo consider the fact that APD’s stats are from incidents on the street. I bet you anything yours is weighed down with incidents in the home. Of course people who use guns on the street are going to the station until it is sorted out. So the 91% is probably right on the money. I have no doubt about the 6% and the 2%. To you guys every nutcase that uses a gun was in the right even when it was unneccessary or illegal use of force. You folks are more dangerous than Osama bin Laden.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
Jimbo,
764,000 is a huge number, but the smallest number among 9 surveys. Keep in mind, what you are quoting is actual crimes. You are right. That means that without the handgun being brandished or whatever, there would have been that many more crimes! These were surveys of individuals, not police statistics. These were folks who said YES, having a weapon stopped the crime. Many of these folks may have been carrying illegally, and many more may just not want to have involved the police. Can you blame them???
The correllation between passage of a concealed carry law and a decrease in crime is also well-documented.
Sorry, you won’t see stuff like this in the main stream media. They are the voice for the government.
By Winslo
June 27, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
Mr. Liberty:
You are doing a great job but don’t forget at some point you are “casting your pearls before swine.”
These bloggers are beyond help or reason.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Give me a break APD. You’re rolling on some pretty hard stereotypes. One, we both know that carry isn’t legal at things like sporting events. I’m a law abiding citizen so…
We also know that if I was buying crack I wouldn’t be legally allowed to possess a firearm at that point.
You’re making some broad assumptions on what I do or why I carry as well as my level of training.
Insane, why do I have my gun in my hand APD? Why don’t I drop it and put my hands above me head when I see your badge and you IDENTIFY YOURSELF per procedure?.. you’re getting pretty iffy there and it’s not going to be a very clean shoot with what you’re describing.
Why am I in this mysterious area “buying crack or whatever”?
What you’re saying isn’t jiving with what my LEO friends tell me. I mean, I’m IN the community.
By Bob's Your Uncle
June 27, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
MrLiberty,
I take objection with the “god-given rights” statement. The only, and I repeat only, God-given right is life. All others, including the right to protect yourself are man-given.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
Zeke, I’m saying I use the SAME SOURCES and I can’t find what he’s talking about anywhere. I’m thoroughly willing to accept it as fact if I see it for myself.
and I’m not just going to take someone’s word for it because he’s a cop (or says he’s a cop).
By MC
June 27, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this
MrLiberty, you are trying to fight common sense with smoke and mirrors. Argue stats all day long but bottom line is that APD is giving out sound advice. Jimbo, go ahead and pack heat everywhere you go. At some point in time APD or some other cop will be prying that gun from your cold dead fingers while the paramedics are bagging and tagging you because your bravado outstripped your ability with that gun. I totally support your right to be stupid as long as it only affects you. You definately have that right. And I’m sure you excercise it to the max.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
I don’t use any site for either side of the argument, they both lie. I use the Department of Justice and the CDC or sometimes foreign government statistics if I’m there.
I don’t trust the NRA anymore than I’d trust the APD. Ask Kathryn Johnston about the under cover officers in the APD.
I don’t have some superior belief that carrying a gun is an instant lifesaver or that it prevents all crime. I’ve said that I haven’t seen evidence that’s very compelling for either side and the idea that guns are the big issue in deaths or injuries in this country is fallacious and without any context.
I research my position and I present the best available data.
By MrLiberty
June 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
My sources are cited, they are not NRA (an organization that does little or nothing to support true gun rights by the way). The data is further cited to its source on the page I noted.
A gun in someone’s possession does nothing to impact your life in any way unless it is used against you. The statistics regarding legal and legitimate use of handguns by concealed permit users look far better than any other group in society.
Face it. You are afraid of what our society has become and you think that disarming law abiding citizens will somehow make things all better. We can’t keep drugs out of prisons, with guards, barbed wire, bars, and 20-foot high fences. Only the innocent will be without guns while the criminals (remember, they are the ones that don’t obey laws) and the police will have them. That is a police state. No thanks.
You have a real problem Zeke. Jimbo and I have been throwing out statistics and facts and using logic and all that has done is brought out the worst in you. Emotion is how we got to this point in america, where hard-working better than average educated patriots have to fight to regain all the freedoms that our parents, grandparents and others happily gave away for the “security” they would never find with a government solution.
And once again I will point out that even if MrAPD’s stats are from the “street”, it still takes someone reporting a crime for that crime to make it to a statistic. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember hearing that APD was underreporting crime statistics in the past. I know that the school systems do on a regular basis. It is in their vested interest to underreport. The same would be true for situations when concealed carry made the difference and stopped the crime.
Qui bono? Who benefits?
Take a chill pill. Realize that it will not be a licensed gun carrier that assaults you next time, and take a serious hard look at the facts of this debate.
And then look at how the war on drugs has only made things worse.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
Sure thing MC there’s a .0003% a gun will kill me one way or the other!
I’m sure it’ll some to pass at the hands of an Atlanta cop.
(This is sarcasm because you obviously don’t read what I type and I grow weary of your misrepresentations)
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this
If you are “IN” the community you know exactly what I’m talking about. If you are in the community maybe you will drop your gun when you see my badge. But what about bad boys like Ray? Chances are he hesitates or points that gun at me like he did the guys with the bats. So Jimbo, if you are “in” the ncommunity you know good and well what happens next. And if you are truly “in” the community you know that all citizens involved in gun incidents go downtown until it gets sorted out. So Jimbo, if you are really “in” the community you know the deal and are argueing based on your political ideology and not what your street experience tells you is fact. If you are “in” the community.
By Lois
June 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
MrLiberty, With the following quote: Emotion is how we got to this point in america, where hard-working better than average educated patriots have to fight to regain all the freedoms that our parents, grandparents and others happily gave away for the “security” they would never find with a government solution.
I sure hope you aren’t a proponent of the current administration, or are saying that the conservatives are fighting for our freedoms. Remember a little thing called the Patriot Act? How about the fact that we practically have to go through the airport naked to pass screening? I classify those “freedoms” we lost as ones that were “freely” given up by conservatives hoping for a governemnt solution to protect them from the big, bad, arabian terrorists.
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this
Jimbo, if you are “in” the community, chances are you have been through the simulator. You know, the one where trained police officers have to decide use of deadly force. Innocent civilians are “killed” in that simulator everyday. If you are “in” the community you cannot possibly advocate for the everyday joe buying a gun and hitting the street with it. He is a menace. If you are “in” the community you know that full well. If you are “in” you know the last thing needed on the street are more guns in the hands of the untrained.
By JAY BOOKMAN
June 27, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this
Jimbo, those survey numbers as to civilian gun use are notoriously bogus. They produce wildly inflated numbers. Respondants claim to have used their guns 20 or 30 times a year.
The best way to do it is to compare dead bodies. Dead bodies are easy to count. They don’t move, they don’t lie, they don’t exaggerate.
In 2006, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics, guns were used in a total of 10,177 homicides.
Of that enormous total, just 195 homicides were categorized as justifiable, defined by the bureau as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.”
Fewer than 200 a year are justified. Almost 10,000 were not. That’s a ratio of one to 52.
Common sense says that you could probably use that same ratio to compare civilian self-defense uses to criminal uses in general. In other words, there are probably 50 gun-related crimes for every use of a gun to stop a crime.
So, since there were 141,000 robberies with a firearm in 2006, there were probably 2,800 robberies prevented with a civilian firearm. Not an insignificant number, but nowhere near the numbers those surveys produce.
By Amelia
June 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this
APD just bit^h slapped you all over this blog. If you are what you say you are you know he’s right. Stop being so blinded by ideology that you don’t believe what your lying eyes have seen for themselves, if you are what you say you are. It makes me remember the slogan Barry Goldwater used. “In your heart you know he’s right”.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this
I think we run in different circles APD.
I’m not afraid of going downtown to sort it all out. I’d be disappointed in our justice system if we didn’t go down town. I know the ROEs for a clean shoot. I practice risk management. I hope for the best and above all I endeavor to go home at night, sound familiar?
Most of my LEO friends and acquaintances support citizen carry, that’s GBI, a handful of municipal departments, a few sheriff’s deputies..
I can’t control the actions of other people, only my own. I’m sorry about ragging you about those in your department who can’t live the life, but I’ve met a lot of cops and more than a few don’t meet the standard and I think you know what I mean so the word of a cop just isn’t what it was because of these bad apples.
As for my political ideology? I’m a firm believer in the constitution. I’m a government non-interventionist.. which puts me in the position of not having a party that truly reflects my belief. I think anyone who would put more faith in the government than themselves is flawed.
on that note Lois is totally right, the second amendment isn’t the only rights getting crapped on. The Patriot Act is the biggest travesty this country has seen in decades. This FISA mess isn’t any better. Expediency is not a good reason to eliminate the rights of the people.
By APD Officer
June 27, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this
Thank you Jay. And Jimbo, being “in” the community, what would have happened to Ray had you observed him hanging out the door of his car pointing a gun at those guys. First he only thought they were after him. Brandishing that gun was an unlawful escalation and you know it. You would have had 6 officers around that car and Ray would have been on his way to lockup and you know it. Ray had absolutely no reason to pull a gun in that situation if it was as he stated there at the end.
By Lois
June 27, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this
You know what Jimbo,
Although we may disagree on the guns issue, I think we have a common denomonator.
I can totally appreciate your statement on your political ideology in relation to the parties out there today. And I am with you on my support of the constitution. In the letter that is, not always the interpretation.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this
My data comes from the DoJ, but like I said it’s OLD and came from a time when crime was on the rise to the point where it peaked. Unfortunately they admit that there may be some police statistics in there and it doesn’t mention whether the incidents were in the home or on the street.. so it doesn’t really clear up APD’s numbers.
Saying that 91% go downtown is sort of deceptive since everyone goes downtown.. the real question is “how many get convicted because of a dirty shoot?” His numbers don’t cover that and most bits in the news (not scientific) mention that the shooter is cleared of charges.
Texas for example has notoriously shooter friendly grand juries.. they had a guy who capped someone stealing two cases of beer and was cleared..
As for Amelia.. shhhhhhh…
By GTgrad
June 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this
It appears that Jay pretty much validated APD’s pie chart. I don’t even need a calculator to figure out that the percentages are pretty damn close. I guess now we just wait for the gun nuts to retreat and come back when they get some more NRA talking points.
By Jimbo
June 27, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this
Lois I am 100% ok with disagreeing.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with I question my beliefs regularly and that’s why I have all these numbers lying around. If I honestly didn’t believe that what I do is the best option for me and mine I wouldn’t do it.
But I think your point is one that gets overlooked, especially by people in the gun owning community all the time and that p** me off as much as anything else. If you look around at the things I post it’s almost always about preserving the rights of all people.
By Draw MuthaFuc%a
June 27, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this
Jay those stats MrLiberty got off of Death Wish 1,2,3,4,and 5 are dead on target. You can’t dispute them.
By Davy
June 27, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this
Yes, thanks to APD for offering us his opinionated and un-verified statistics. I sleep better at night knowing he is always there to protect me and my family. Yes, the streets are safe with him out there, I trust him no doubt. By the way, Rodney King says hi.
By Doug Edwards
June 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this
Well, Jimbo. What do you tell the guys wife that just got himself killed playing Clint Eastwood? You know. The ones that would have gone home alive if they’d just used common sense and not grabbed for a gun. I think his heroic death fighting crime won’t make her or his kids feel any better. What do you tell her? That her dead hero husband died bravely but stupidly?
By Art
June 27, 2008 6:19 PM | Link to this
Davy you’re a moron. Next time you need help call one of these wannabe gunslingers. Bet they don’t even show.
By Don Julio
June 27, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this
Brilliant Davy. You’re exactly the type thats wife gets told you died being stupid. But we know little Davy. You died like a man with that gun in your hand. Stick to fantasy Davy. You’ll live longer.
By Davy
June 27, 2008 6:25 PM | Link to this
After trailing through this entire thread, GaLiberal, you epitomize what Ron White said, “you can’t fix stupid.” Have you had any formal education? No pun intended, if you did I must assume it was in Liberal Arts. To quote Randy Newman, “…went in dumb, come out dumb too…”. Sheesh, what buffoon.
By Sarah Connah
June 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this
Davy will be one of the 6%ers. Keep playing with your *)%$ Davy. It’s safer than a gun in your hand.
By GOPs got to go
June 27, 2008 6:29 PM | Link to this
Dear James,
I do believe you might be growing here. You have blogged without giving innuendos or out right statements as to your high level of security clearance blah, blah ,blah. I am proud of you!
No, my war hero dad is alive and well thank you. And I know enough about family to never enter into a discussion of politics with him. I do know that I was raised never hearing the “N” word, told to work hard and never pampered. I respect and love him very much. He has earned that from me. He has also earned a nice quiet retirement and a good life.
You do know that any references to you in my blog were only meant to be metaphoric. Since you are all “big bad me” so much.
HHHOOORRRAAAHH
By GOPs got to go
June 27, 2008 6:38 PM | Link to this
APD Officer,
I would terrorist fist bump you right now if I could. Funny how the real Bad-Asses don’t have to say it so much. You put your life out there on the line every day and I for one appreciate it.
Tell Shirley to give you a raise, everyone of you deserve it.
Well, maybe not the ones who shot that old lady, but that is a perfect example of a gun owner where things went a little bad when fingers on both side got itchy. She is part of the above stats on homeowners with guns.
By Deanna
June 27, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this
Why does the thought of a bunch of untrained gun totin Barney Fifes not give me that warm and fuzzy feeling? The thought of all those fools with trigger fingers itching to open up on some purse snatcher on a crowded city street just doesn’t give me that safe and secure feeling that the gun nuts say it should. Imagine that.
By James
June 27, 2008 9:02 PM | Link to this
To GOP’s Got to Go:
1) Since your Dad had bad immersion foot when he returned he would have been a Captain (skipper) or lower at the time. They stayed in the bush with the grunts.
2) Give him a Semper Fi from India 3/4 (1967-68). He’ll know the unit.
Over and Out ……………
By Hillbilly Deluxe
June 27, 2008 9:36 PM | Link to this
911 on speed dial? What do you do while you’re waiting on help to arrive?
By Jimbo
June 28, 2008 12:44 AM | Link to this
Oh Doug.. I don’t tell her anything. I don’t tell people who don’t wear seatbelts anything and I don’t tell people who don’t wear condoms anything. Adults make decisions and have to live with the consequences.
I don’t have a lot of mercy for someone who acts the fool and gets themselves killed, not when it’s easy enough to learn to do it right.
By Jimbo
June 28, 2008 12:44 AM | Link to this
Deanna, Strawman, look it up.
By Jimbo
June 28, 2008 12:51 AM | Link to this
GOPs got to go:
Those officers shouldn’t have been at that lady’s house. They LIED to get the warrant. They used a no knock warrant on an old lady in a bad part of town. So they burst into her house without identifying themselves and she shot into the ceiling. The officers fired 39 shots. they hit a 92 year old woman six times and they managed to wound each other. Then.. THEN they planted drugs in the home and lied to federal investigators to cover it all up. There were implications in later testimony that this sort of thing is the norm.
Yeah, that sounds like a group of elite bad asses to me.
By luangtom
June 28, 2008 1:03 AM | Link to this
We can all rest easy. Barack Hussein Obama is THE man to put all of this gun-control rhetoric to rest. Afterall, he helped write and put into law those wonderful firearms regulations in Illinois when he was a legislator from Chicago there. We all know how well those work……..
By GodHatesTrash
June 28, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
As long as we are on the subject of guns’ ability to stop imaginary crimes, my gun prevented my home from being broken into 365 times last year, stopped at least 10000 assaults (I saw at least that many people last year, not once did anyone attack me - or my wife - make that 20000 foiled assualts). Oh - wait a minute - I don’t have a gun.
Never mind.
(Most NRAers are sick paranoid rage and hate-filled people - they project their own misanthropy onto us decent folks - everyone they meet is a murderer or rapist or thief, especially if they look different…)
By James
June 28, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
To GodHatesTrash:
1) Just one personal incident will change you views. Remember, you can always run from a bad situation but it’s much harder with your wife and young ones trying to keep up. I wish you well.
To et al:
I don’t have time to read through all the entries again but someone yesterday brought up a question about when do guns right trump property rights. Consider this. Property rights are NOT sacred. Never have been. Your home is pretty much your castle (absent probable cause) but your place of business that you OWN is not (at least in modern times). Try keeping “minorities” from eating in your restaurant! Isn’t that YOUR property to do with as YOU PLEASE ?
Nope!
Why? Because minorities have Constitutional rights and so should law abiding carry permit holding citizens under the Second Amendment. You should have no right to keep us our of your PUBLIC place of business. Your home is a different matter.
THIS will be the next important case !
By Bruce
June 28, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
I also don’t think the public is eager to start rolling back a whole range of gun laws, laws they had come to accept and support as necessary for public safety.
I am a member of the public and I would very much like to see the repeal of all “gun laws”; I do not see where any “gun laws” are necessary for public safety.
“Gun laws” do not make homicide, intimidation, or other crimes (which I agree should all be crimes) any more ‘illegal’ - all “gun laws” do it make ‘guns’ themselves illegal.
Making guns illegal is like making it illegal to punch or kick someone who is trying to rape or murder you. “Gun laws” are merely politically symbolic and nothing more. Such laws only have the effect of legislating pacifism (which, technically, is unconstitutional).
-Bruce
By Winslo
June 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
For those of you who oppose anything to do with the Second Amendment, it makes me wonder if you would have been a “Patriot” or a “Tory” ? P.S. The Tories went to Canada after the war. Hint.
By James
June 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment has certainly created a lot of hysteria. For those of you who think the ruling will turn law abiding gun owners into crazed cowboys let me aprise you of a few facts that we already know. First, whether in war, law enforcement or personal protection, shooting someone is an extremely traumatic event. Second, your every action and motive will be scrutinized by police and a grand jury. Third, no matter how justifiable the shooting you can be sure the family of the perpetrator will find an attorney to sue you. The great majority of gun owners know that a wise course of action is to get a good description and call 911 and that deadly force should be used only when all other options fail.
By GodHatesTrash
June 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Perhaps, James, but I doubt it.
I’ve managed to live over 50 years with only once having a gun pointed at me - some angry driver (guess which race?) didn’t like how I approached a merge situation on I-285, so he turned on his interior light and waved his pistolero at me.
If my glovebox had held a piece, after I’d fumbled for it at 60 mph (and hopefully didn’t crash), perhaps then we could have engaged in a high-speed night-time chase in traffic, guns a blazin’ - just like a Bruce Willis movie.
As it was, I merely hit my brakes, and the knuckledragger sped off into the night, chickenhawk chickens-hit that he was…
When I lived in Atlanta, my car was broken into once, and my house or apartment burgled 3 times in 30 years. Never once would a gun have helped, since I wasn’t home (or in the car) for any of them. Not having a gun was once less thing for them to steal.
My mother and father lived in a house in Phoenix - one day my mother and brother came home to a burglary in progress - my brother walked into my parents’ bedroom as the perpetrators were scaling the back fence. Of course, if he’d had a gun, my brother could have maybe had the satisfaction of shooting a couple of teenagers in the back, if he had run fast enough to get off a shot or two off while they ran through the neighbors’ yards…
But go ahead, enjoy your elaborately planned Hollywood Bronson/Stallone/Willis/Eastwood/ fantasies, organize your entire life around them, if you wish. But if you spent one-tenth of the amount of time you spend obsessing and fantasizing about which gun to have handy if a serial killer home invader jumps through your bedroom window on working on getting along better with and engaging other people, your life would improve dramatically.
Many “‘muricans” think that guns are the panacea to all of society’s ills - paranoia is a serious mental disease, as the group Faithless says in their song Mass Destruction, “fear is a weapon of mass destruction”,,,
By James
June 28, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
To GodHatesTrash:
1) You avoided my points but nothing I can do about that.
2) You did exactly the right thing in the “road rage” incident. However, if had had wrecked you and started shooting you wouldn’t be here to tell me your story as you would have had no means to resist.
3) Regarding the burlary scenarios it’s a moot point. You weren’t there. If you had walked in on one in progress there is a good chance they would have panicked and since you would have been defenseless ………….
4) If your brother had shot two teenage burglars who were escaping over the back fence and no longer a threat to him then he would be in jail. The Supreme Court ruled on that in a Tenn. case back in the 70’s when a police officer did the same thing which was o.k. under state law. No more “fleeing felon” shootings.
5) Any more scenarios/questions?
I have one for you.
I assume you are married and maybe have children or grandchildren. You and your wife and grandchild have been to the movies. In spite of your best efforts, as you get in your car you are hijacked by a “BiG” thug. The grandchild (age four) is in the back in the safety seat. The perpetrator pulls you from the car (or shoots you and drags you out if you don’t move). Your wife is screaming. The baby is crying. He’s fumbling with the keys to start the car …………
By GodHatesTrash
June 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
I am aware of that James, are you suggesting I keep a gun under my seat? In my glovebox? Or drive with it in my hand (I like manual transmission cars, I’m old fashioned)? Or in a shoulder holster? Or a derringer in my boots? (As a “librul” I’m often in my crocs). Since I am not obese, I can’t hide one in my buttcrack like many of you do. Besides that, I’m not in to that sort of thing…
(Perhaps I can leave the gun in the back seat, and the four-year old can hand it to me. Hey kid - turn the safety off)
Your scenario is a quite a warped fantasy - you should write Hollywood screenplays.
You see, if the big guy has a gun, he has the drop on me, even if I have the gun in my hand. If he already shot me from close range, I’m dead or dying. If he yanked me from the car, he probably spotted my shoulder holster.
If he doesn’t have a gun, I go after him. As a man, I’m supposed to take one for the team. My job, though, is not defending my honor, it is protecting the lives of my loved ones - most gunnut fantasies seem very blurry around that distinction…
By James
June 28, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
To God Hates Trash:
You miss most of the reasoning here.
1) No, I don’t think you should get or have a gun. Nothing personal but the more I converse with you the more I realize you are the type that shouldn’t have one because you:
a) Don’t want one b) Don’t know how to use one c) Don’t know how to be safe
2) Guns are not for everyone. I would never force you to carry one so you shouldn’t get on my case for doing so.
3) I would have hoped in that last scenario that you would have gotten the point that if would have been good if you could have somehow had a way to keep that thug from driving off with your wife and grandchild. But alas, that’s up to you.
I wish you well …………
Over and Out.
By GodHatesTrash
June 28, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
Sorry James, I mixed up a couple of posts.
I’m aware that my brother would have been subject to arrest, but thankfully, since there was no gun, there was no foul. The burglary was already done, the horses already out of the barn.
That particular brother used to have a serious drinking problem. Thankfully his family didn’t have to worry about not only an angry drunk, but an angry drunk that liked to play with guns. What if he had come home buzzed, gun in hand, and the teenage kids were only partly over the wall -
I know, my fantasies aren’t as interesting as yours. Oh well.
By James
June 28, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
No harm done. The point is, guns are not for everyone. The world is largely made up of sheep (not a derogatory term - just a fact), a substantial number of wolves (the criminal element) and a minority of sheepdogs (police and civilians willing to fight back). We all have our roles to play.
By GodHatesTrash
June 28, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
James, admit it - your so-called reasoning is just feverish fantasizing.
Class dismissed.
As you were.
By James
June 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
The difference is - I’ve seen the elephant.
As my dad used to say …… “He who is convinced his will is of the same opinion sitll!”
By hpyjtsbw dgul
March 10, 2009 8:42 AM | Link to this
vjrh jqrx lycawrq wflcsmno rabokqe bljmyop dnmsbyhli
By hpyjtsbw dgul
March 10, 2009 8:43 AM | Link to this
vjrh jqrx lycawrq wflcsmno rabokqe bljmyop dnmsbyhli
By hpyjtsbw dgul
March 10, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this
vjrh jqrx lycawrq wflcsmno rabokqe bljmyop dnmsbyhli
By hpyjtsbw dgul
March 10, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this
vjrh jqrx lycawrq wflcsmno rabokqe bljmyop dnmsbyhli
By hpyjtsbw dgul
March 10, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
vjrh jqrx lycawrq wflcsmno rabokqe bljmyop dnmsbyhli
By hpyjtsbw dgul
March 10, 2009 8:49 AM | Link to this
vjrh jqrx lycawrq wflcsmno rabokqe bljmyop dnmsbyhli