My wife and I were talking about the recent massacre in Aurora, Colorado, during the midnight premiere of the The Dark Knight Rises. We were talking about the sadly predictable rush of some in the press to blame it on the Tea Party or other right-wing “extremists”, and some of the questions that reasonable people would ask like “Who takes a 3 month old baby to a midnight screening?” and why it is a mistake to call it a “tragedy” rather than what it is: a massacre…a premeditated act of evil. At this point, the little pitcher with big ears, my 12 year-old chimed in.
“That’s why people shouldn’t have guns.”
“Really?”
“Yeah.”
“Did you know that the theatre was a “gun-free zone“?
“So.”
“So why did the guy who shot people get in with his gun?”
“Because he didn’t care?”
“Exactly. And do you think that people who obey the law also obeyed that policy, and didn’t bring a gun with them?”
“Yes.”
“Exactly. So did that “no guns” policy make anyone safer?”
*pause*
“No.”
“But only the police should have guns.”
“NO! Think! Why do you think only the police should have guns?”
“So they can keep us safe.”
“Did they keep those people safe?”
“No…”
“Exactly. Sometimes, you have to go to dangerous places. And those places are dangerous because of the people who are there, not because some of them have guns. But having a gun, and knowing how to use it is a way of taking responsibility for your own safety.”
“But that’s what the police are for.”
“Can you strap a police officer on your hip?”
“No.”
“Is there always a police officer around when you need one?”
“No.”
“Exactly.”
“You should respect police officers, son, but you should not rely on them for protection. They have a very difficult job, and frequently, no matter what they do, they are going to make someone angry. It is a tough, thankless job, and because they are people like you and me, you also need to understand that when things get tough, they feel the pressure too. But you also need to understand, they cannot be everywhere, and when there is a problem, they may or may not be able to get there in time. People who understand this have a few sayings that help make this clear: “Call a cop, call an ambulance, and call for a pizza, and see who shows up first.” and “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
I could see the wheels working.
“So having a gun should be a right, because people should be able to defend themselves.”
“It IS a right. That’s one of the reasons we have a Second Amendment.”
“Why would people not want this right?”
“Because they believe that if they give up those freedoms, and the responsibilities that go with them, then the people they give those rights to will make them safe.”
“But it doesn’t work.”
“Well, it might…if you give up everything. But then it isn’t much of a life when someone else makes all your decisions for you. And in the meantime, laws like the ones that people are calling for only make people who obey the laws less safe, because people who don’t care about the laws aren’t going to follow them. Kind of like what happened there in Colorado the other day…the people who obeyed the law were disarmed, but the criminal…the guy who planned to do bad things and hurt and kill people didn’t care about the rules and the law. And because of that, a lot of people were put in danger because they weren’t allowed to defend themselves.”
“I understand. People have a responsibility to protect themselves.”
“FREE people have a responsibility to defend themselves…and their loved ones…and the innocent and defenseless.”
“Because in life, there are people who want to hurt others, and who don’t follow the rules.”
“Exactly. And FREE people understand that you can’t be made safe from the consequences of life and be free. ”
“I think I understand, Dad.”
“I think you’re closer than a lot of people, and I think you’ll continue to understand more as time goes on.”
—————————————————————————————————–
The saddest part about this is that a 12-year-old with Aspberger’s understands better than Roger Ebert that this didn’t show a failure of concealed carry laws, because law-abiding people with a concealed carry permit followed the rules, and the murderer did not.
“I sure am glad I obeyed laws that disarmed me, and allowed me to be killed.” said no massacre victim ever.
DPUD has some MOAR relentless fact and logic for the gun-fearing wussie crowd, and as always, its a good read.
**************************************************************************
Now we’re seeing that the “body armor” wasn’t?
And the PJ Tatler has more on this “urban assault vest“.
Nylon…NOT Kevlar…and look at the nice unprotected gaps.
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death 
I sincerely hope the conversation documented above was fictional because if not, if constitutes intellectual child abuse.
Sometimes, you have to go to dangerous places. And those places are dangerous because of the people who are there, not because some of them have guns. But having a gun, and knowing how to use it is a way of taking responsibility for your own safety.
What utter nonsense …. a movie theater is NOT a dangerous place.So that’s the first utter failure in judgment. I’m sorry your 12 year old didn’t point that out to you but alas the kid is impressionable and holds you in esteem so your wild west ideas of self protection will be taken wholesale.
Did you bother to tell your son that the evil SOB in the theater was covered head to toe in bullet proof material? Did you bother to tell him that former LA police chief and former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton said that it was virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to have taken Holmes down due to his body armor and ample ammo?
I truly wish you hadn’t made this post so personal because I do respect you enough not to insult you but to my mind you have not balanced a sound education of the 2nd amendment with a practical consideration of its application in every day life. You have given your boy a grossly unrealistic notion of what self protection is all about.
P.S. Let me reiterate … in advance I apologize for criticizing your parenting skills … again I wish you hadn’t made the post so personal.
I sincerely hope the conversation documented above was fictional because if not, if constitutes intellectual child abuse.
I’ve let you babble anything from offensive inanities to deliberate deceptions on this page R, because there have been moments where despite your basest default impulses, you have actually recognized how wrong you usually are. That said, had you actually said that to my face, you would have experienced first hand just how little patience I have for this kind of nonsense these days. You’re wrong, and in fact, you are dangerously wrong. If you want to live like a sheep, that’s fine. You might get lucky, or you might find out that the authorities you’re so willing to cede your rights to are just as much wolves as the insane killers like Mr. Holmes, or what you imagine the evil reich wingerzzz to be. But don’t ever presume to lecture me on how I raise my children.
And danger happens anywhere, R. It happened in a midnight showing at a movie theatre in Colorado…a “gun free zone”. It’s happened in schools in places like Columbine, and Virgina Tech…also “gun free zones”. Its happened in shopping malls, like this one my family frequents, which are typically a “gun free zone”. Or even community centers. What do these places all have in common? The illusion of safety. What else do they have in common? They expect the law abiding to be unarmed. And the final commonality? The police show up after the shooting has started…and in some cases, well after the shooting started. The point of the exercise is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a “safe” place, only places where the likelihood of being a victim to violence is less than in others.
Did you bother to tell your son that the evil SOB in the theater was covered head to toe in bullet proof material?
Actually, we did discuss that. And we had the conversation about large calibre and small distances means that maybe while you don’t penetrate the armor, they STILL feel it. Ask someone who’s been shot while wearing body armor or a bullet proof vest, R. An impact will almost certainly concentrate enough force to bruise, or even break ribs, maybe even knocking them down. Then there is the matter of amateur attackers pausing and being startled by the mere fact of their “victims” firing back.
Did you bother to tell him that former LA police chief and former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton said that it was virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to have taken Holmes down due to his body armor and ample ammo?
“Did I give him the opinions of the same kinds of people who call semi-automatic rifles “assault rifles”, and who have their own reasons for wanting citizens disarmed?” you mean?
I truly wish you hadn’t made this post so personal because I do respect you enough not to insult you but to my mind you have not balanced a sound education of the 2nd amendment with a practical consideration of its application in every day life.
Life is personal, Rutherford. Maybe its the fact that I grew up right next to what was the per capita murder capital of this country for several years running in my youth, and is still considered one of the most dangerous cities in America, (a place where yes, going to to movies CAN be dangerous), and a place where the first day of rifle season for deer is damn near a holiday, but I assure you that I understand better than you the “application” of the Second Amendment in everyday life. That’s why I know “Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.” isn’t really a joke. If you paid closer attention to people like Gorilla, you’d know that.
And danger happens anywhere, R. Yes danger CAN happen anywhere. But I still don’t know how that translates to calling a movie theater “a dangerous place”. Are we to view EVERYWHERE we go as dangerous? This is the very mindset that folks walking around packing conjures up … that danger is always seconds away and you have to be able to shoot your way out of it. What kind of way is that to live? In a constant state of paranoia? Have a plan to kill everyone you meet isn’t funny at all. It’s downright scary. Who wants to live that way?
Terrible terrible sh*t happens. We comfort ourselves by saying if only someone had a gun. It’s a way of avoiding the fact that Holmes was like a tornado. There was no stopping him. And truth be told, someone firing at him could easily have hit an innocent bystander in that darkened theater.
I don’t live “in a state of paranoia.”
I’m not nervous, nor do I live in a state of fear.
I am aware of my surroundings. And I take responsibility for my safety and those in my family.
It isn’t horrible. Its what adults do.
Your home is not supposed to be a dangerous place either. Any idea how many home invasions occur every year?
R, if your only form of self-defense is your phone, I would like to invite you to come see what my neighborhood’s 5-10 minute hold time for a 911 operator is like.
Also: “intellectual child abuse”???
It’s remarkable how moonbats threaten legal action at the slightest hint of a rational argument….
Oh please give it a rest. There was no threat of legal action. You’re smoking dope. I was using admittedly inflammatory rhetoric to get my point across.
He is an elitist from Harvard. What would you expect?
Your rhetoric is one of the many reason why “normal” people despise those who go to elite colleges.
I couldn’t care less about here you went…. I have enough family that went to Harvard Medical, who have more common sense and wouldn’t be pointing fingers at those who own guns.
Feh. I went to Chicago. Top that, Yard-bird. 😉
Did you bother to tell him that former LA police chief and former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton said that it was virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to have taken Holmes down due to his body armor and ample ammo?
The gunman expected people to run or cower in fear. Maybe he would have been the one to run if someone had fought back.
Aren’t you giving him too much credit for a rational response? As far as we know he was not a hoodlum prankster easily deterred by an opposing force. He was psychotic, unable to reason normally, and very prepared to protect himself from the very fight you suggest.
Why is that people say this and this happens Or shootings in malls, or at campaign conventions, or randomly for no apparent reason other than they want to see what it looks like when someone gets shot.
I am not sure if you know this, but people who take classes for proper use of hand guns, especially for CCL./CCW, usually learn to shot people in the neck and face if nothing else stops the assailant. But you wouldn’t know that I am going to assume…
And if you don’t like his parenting style, maybe you should have thought about it before you blasted him on HIS blog. It is his child, not yours and your opinion of how he should teach his child really has nothing to do with you, even if he was explaining the situation. Hello, I don’t see you paying for his bandwidth…. you know, since he has a J.O.B., pays taxes an all.
Ugh
He was wearing a gas mask/riot gear helmet and had a bullet proof collar around his neck. This man, unlike many mass murdering psychos had no intention of dying.
Umm the mask wasn’t bullet proof. A theater at max is 50 ft across. Most kids I know can shoot an hit a mark, in low light, at 50ft or more.
And it wasn’t a “bullet proof” collar, it is a collar that helps SWAT (and soldier) not take shrapnel, which come to find out doesn’t work as well as hope by SWAT and the military. The “collar” is designed so you don’t have a small puncture or an abrasion. Shrapnel is usually flatten during an explosion.
So, who seems to be the one who doesn’t know anything about body armor? Sure as hell isn’t me.
I was relying on news reports. Who knew you were the expert?
Does that bother you Rutherford? That I actually know more than what the news provides concerning details? That many of us who are arguing with you also own weapons?
I have many “assault” weapons. I know how they jam, why they jam, and how to un-jam them. But since I am a responsible owner, they are locked away. Does that bother you that I have many guns.. ammo… and other weapons?
Maybe your lack of intelligence bothers me and how you are going after people who are very good parents and possibly a gun owner himself.
Upinak, “bother” is not quite the right word. The fact that you own so many guns does scare me a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
All those guns make you so scared you wanna just go pass a law, huh, R? 🙂
Maybe call the police for “intellectual child abuse” even?
Did you bother to tell him that former LA police chief and former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton said that it was virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to have taken Holmes down due to his body armor and ample ammo?
Please define ‘Ordinary Citizen’, and following that, please describe what weapons/methods/tactics/magic that the Police possess that make them far superior to the said ‘Ordinary Citizen’.
Marko,
Rutherford is a subscriber to the quaint notion that only “authorized” people, like the police, should have access to firearms. He is quite afraid of the notion of anyone else possessing a gun, especially the fearsome “assault rife”, to the degree that it provokes him to all manner of ignorant condemnation. I’ve come to the conclusion in years of sparring with him that it is indeed a good idea that HE not have one. I’m afraid that his fear might cause him to shoot himself.
I’ve told you repeatedly I have no business with a gun. I weigh so little and have such poor balance that the kickback of a gun would knock me right on my ass.
I am not anti-hunting (it’s not my thing but I’m not against it). So it isn’t true that I feel the average law abiding citizen shouldn’t be able to own a gun. Bit you’re damn right BiW that the notion of the “wild west” scares the crap out of me. Too much room for error.
Rutherford,
The wild west? Are you serious?
So anyone who owns a colt 45 is a fucking cowboy? Oh jeez.
When enough of us own colt 45’s then yes … it becomes the wild west.
“When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.”
LOL living in Long Island, how in the fuck would you know what the west looks like. You probably think it like the old western movies.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/book-reviews/book-review-the-not-so-wild-wild-west-property-rights-on-the-frontier-terry-l-anderson-and-peter-j-hillby/
http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west
http://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Violence-Another-Galaxy-Books/dp/0195020987/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234881730&sr=8-1
It’s interesting that you ask that because Holmes was so well armed and self protected that even the police would have had trouble bringing him down in a fire fight. The Aurora police chief actually seemed relieved that Holmes surrendered.
Umm he wasn’t that well armed. Do you know how much the body armor weighs? Think 70 LBS or more. How about his “assault rifle” jamming… and he couldn’t figure out how to unjam it.
From the sounds of it, he ran out of ammo in the hand guns he had and couldn’t fire anymore due to the rifle jamming. But, since you live in Long Island, and have probably never shot anything bigger than a bolt action .22, how would you know… you are the average citizen. And I guess I am the wild west.
Do me a favor, take your overly expensive Harvard education, and go find something useful to do with it… in long island.. or chicago, which both conveniently have strict guns laws but some of the highest rates of crimes in the nation.
And as for anyone protecting you… thank the US Military.
I thank the US military every day.
Haven’t lived on Long Island in over 25 years but thanks for at least trying to read my bio. 😉
The gun jammed because he had some sort of incompatible drum attached to it. The drum held 100 rounds. Any good reason for an ordinary citizen to need that kind of fire power, even in self defense?
Oh FFS.
I go hunting with my M-4. It is light and easy and quick. And can put a deer, or a moose down depending on the round.
And the reason his gun jammed would be due to condensation that got into the mechanism.
But you wouldn’t know that.
The drum held 100 rounds. Any good reason for an ordinary citizen to need that kind of fire power, even in self defense?
I could think of many good reasons, Rutherford. Remember the Rodney King riots, and Korean shopkeepers who protected their stores via gunfire from the rooftops? Their stores were NOT looted.
How about protecting your life and loved ones following a natural disaster, like a California earthquake, Gulf of Mexico Hurricane, or F-5 Tornado? How long was the power out in the cities of the Northeast recently?
Once people get cold, hot, hungry or thirsty enough, they tend to lose their sensibilities. A firearm is the only sure way to defend yourself and your loved ones for those who harbor bad intent.
Even the most callous criminal understands this, and respects it.
Unreal, Rutherford. You insulted his parenting, then proceeded to “apologize in advance” AFTER the fact? And you had the ability to edit that post before you pressed “Post Comment”? *facepalm*
Any attempt at intellectual honesty at this point from you should be considered suspect, based on that failure alone.
Belle, I found myself in a bit of a quandary. I strongly disagreed with BiW’s post. I felt he gave poor advice. And I said so. That being said I’ve “known” BiW longer than you probably understand and I DO respect him and don’t wish to hurt his feelings.
At worst I plead guilty for trying to have my cake and eat it too.
Then it’s not really much of an apology, is it? Let’s review. “I think you give poor advice as a parent. Worse. I think it borders on intellectual abuse [VERY STRONG WORD!]. But I’d like to remind you that I respect you [cowardly way of backing away from your STRONG WORD]. But here’s all the reasons I think you’re still wrong in your logic. Blah, blah, blah. And oh yeah, once again it’s all your fault that I said these things because you shouldn’t have made it personal. Let me insult your parenting again. Oh well, that forces me to apologize in advance [in a postscript].”
^^Yeah, that’s the best way I know to show someone I’ve “known” for longer than you understand how I respect him, Rutherford. And naturally, that’s how I genuinely apologize to most people I respect. Give me a break. Does that appear contrite to you?
“At worst I plead guilty for trying to have my cake and eat it too.”
I kinda thought that was a sufficient mea culpa but obviously you just enjoy having a good fight.
You win, Belle,
Rutherford, it’s ok honey. Since my kids have grown up big and strong I don’t have to protect them as much because I raised them to defend themselves. So, if every anything scary goes down, you can cower on the floor behind me.
If you or your kids had the ability to protect me in a pinch, I’d be most grateful. I don’t think you represent the average citizen.
You totally missed the point. Cowering behind a woman in a dangerous situation is where a child belongs. A child is someone less capable, immature, still learning of the world and still dependant on the adults around them to keep them safe. A child dependant on the adults, not just the police but all adults, to keep them safe. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes taking cover is your only option, but you intend for that to be your only option ever, no matter the circumstance.
You’ve had many years to learn of a better response to a dangerous situation then cowering but you not only refuse to do so but you scoff at those who have and those who are passing that knowledge to the next generation.
Stop being a child and learn how to protect your own family. Chances are I won’t be there to save you. It’s not as if my kids or myself have some superhero abilities but rather we deliberately leaned and practiced but you refuse to even attempt. If you can muster the strength to lift a gallon of milk, you can handle the recoil from a pistol or a shot gun. The fact that you chose to remain ignorant though is pathetic.
You don’t know me so you don’t know the extent of my disability. I would actually have difficulty hitting someone over the head with a gallon of milk. I’m not great in the muscle strength area and I walk with leg braces and a cane so I do think (unless I was braced against a wall) that the recoil would knock me on my ass, if not toss me backward across the room.
Be that as it may, we all have methods of protecting our families. I believe in locked doors and a minimum of midnight entertainment.
Your right, I don’t know you but I am able to discern that your reading comprehension is a wee bit off. I said lift a gallon of milk as using it as a weapon is a poor choice.
Bit of an inference skill problem on your part. I was implying that lifting a gallon of milk is an effort for me. Half-gallon? Maybe.
Rutherford, very few disabilities interfere with the ability to defend yourself against predators who might mistake you for an easy mark:
Oh, heck. This is easy, R. Get one of these puppies. LIght recoil, and, with the right bullets, it’ll pierce, horrors, body armor. If it was good enough for a little “workplace violence” down at Fort Hood, it should protect a frail little moonbat like you against alla us vicious tea-party wingnuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven
‘course, you might have to beg an “Authorized” entity for the proper permission to have the penetrating rounds, but, hey, as a resident of a blue state you’ve probably got *lots* of experience in hack-supplication…
Thanks for the gun recommendation Bob, Should I ever move down to your neck of the woods I’ll be sure to buy one. If everyone is packing, it would be in my best interest to have one too, if only to protect myself from do-gooders. 😉
My neck of the woods is Anguilla, BWI, in the elbow of the Caribbean.
Gun ownership, particularly by whites (no, really), is prohibited. Especially after Dunblaine.
Gang violence here is starting to become epidemic as a result. Somewhere John Lott is laughing.
BTW, when I first started coming here in 1997, it had been ten years since the last murder. Now it has been ten days.
Again, John Lott laught.
The Audacity of Dope.
Please excuse Rutherford for not knowing shit from shinola. Please also excuse Rutherford for utilizing that lack of knowledge in daring to tell someone else how they should be parenting.
On second thought, there is no excuse for buying into the party line that guns are bad and following like a blind sheep to slaughter. There is no excuse for not educating oneself in the historical abuses by governments, always initiating with disarmament of the populace. There is no excuse for talking out of your ass regarding small arms, when you have ZERO fucking knowledge of firearms.
There is no excuse for someone in a gubmint-built POS glass FEMA trailer to start throwing rocks about educating a child, when he can’t be bothered to educate himself.
Two to the chest, one to the head will usually work on most foes. Including this punk. Why, you ask? Well, see, not all body armor is “bulletproof”. Most ballistic vests and other adornments are “bullet-resistant”, and can be defeated by tumbling rounds and ricochets. Additionally, while this asstard in Colorado may have been wearing more body armor than is customary, there is no fucking way to be fully encapsulated in “bulletproof” material. Period. There will always be vulnerable points. Usually the face and neck are ideal, as is the groin and hips. And, after getting drilled in the chest by two rounds, most people, even with a trauma plate in their ballistic vest, would likely suffer from broken/cracked ribs, making breathing difficult. The stun factor alone would likely distract him/her long enough for a third round to be sent downrange between the eyes. AND MOST PEOPLE WHO CONCEAL CARRY LEGALLY KNOW THIS AND PRACTICE THIS TYPE OF SHOOTING IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS, SO THEY WILL BE FUCKING PREPARED WHEN THE DAY ARRIVES.
As for your parenting skills, please do us all a favor and get a vasectomy.
A movie theater is not a dangerous place?
What friggin reality are you living in Rutherford?
It’s assholes like you that disarm law abiding citizens who may have been able to stop this lunatic from doing as much damage as he did.
You tell him, UFMS. Then summon the SMOD!
also, “a sound education of the second amendment”
let me put you some fuckin knowledge.
My right to self defense doesn’t come from having permission from the likes of you, it comes from one place.
GOD.
Hate to let you in on this but we don’t live in a theocracy and God let a six year old child die just cos she wanted to see a f*cking movie. Don’t even go there.
So you are now putting down the parental judgement of the parents of a slain girl,
Dude, you seriously have overshot your welcome!
First of all your comment makes no sense. I was addressing God not her parents.
But since you went there … yeah damn right I question the judgment of parents who take their six year old kid to midnight showing of any movie, much less one as violent as the Batman franchise.
So thanks for adding to my point.
If I’m not mistaken there was a 3 month old there too, Makes sense to you?
Wow.. so you are going to blame God?
You aren’t Christ, stop while you are ahead.
“a movie theater is NOT a dangerous place.”
I can think of at least 12 people that would disagree with that.
I assure you they did disagree with that before getting shot in a place that is NOT dangerous.
There is the potential for danger everywhere. Is it reasonable for all of us to wear bullet proof clothing and be packing everywhere we go?
HAHAHAHA, Really??? you can assure something like that? How convenient.
I think we’ve just established that movie theaters, especially the “gun free” variety, are, in fact, dangerous places.
Funny how that works, isn’t it? You take away the right to self-defense, and suddenly you get, well, sheep, really.
Rutherford,
This can let you know the kind of force that some of those rounds can hit with, even with body armor.
Thank you BiW. It’s not the first time that I’ve been told that a bullet can knock you on your ass even if you’re wearing armor. It still doesn’t address the fiction that the average joe in a darkened theater could have made a difference.
The only “fiction” is the belief that if government would restrict your right to defend yourself, then crazy people wouldn’t find a way to kill or maim others.
All such a thing does is make the crazy people more successful, and make them feel safer while doing so.
I’m amazed that everyone’s solution is to be prepared to shoot back. No one here has any problem with the amount of ammo and firearms this man was able to purchase? What possible sensible motive could anyone have to own four deadly weapons and 6000 rounds of ammo (ordered off the web, no less)?
Why don’t we look to Japan which had 11 gun homicides in one year? I seriously doubt it is because most Japanese men and women walk around packing heat.
R, more people die annually from cars. Are you going to start banning them?
Seriously, I can assure you that the only one who has a problem with the weapons and ammo is you. I realize that you think 6000 rounds is a lot. It really isn’t.
Two points. Cars are sold to transport people and very few people use them for any other reason than that. Guns are sold for one reason only, to wound or kill. Please don’t tell me about all the folks who buy them JUST for target practice. Surely there are non-lethal ways to enjoy target practice.
And speaking of target practice, yes I heard a gun-defender on the news saying a 6000 round purchase is typical for folks who enjoy target practice.I just don’t get it …. and I assure you I am NOT the only person who has problems with weapons and ammo. Ask Sarah Brady or Nancy Reagan.
You also continue to make the mistake of presuming that we have to justify the exercise of a right. Do you ask why newspaper owners or television station owners why they own such “extreme” expressions of the First Amendment? Do you ask why someone who owns their home asks to see a warrant before letting police search their home? Is that ‘extreme’?
Again, you don’t want to exercise the right, or accept the responsibilities that come with freedom, fine, but you don’t get the right to decide that WE can’t.
Call me arrogant but one of the biggest mistakes of the framers was to compose an amendment that could be so easily distorted by folks who want to profit from guns.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms relates to the functioning of a “well regulated militia”. Are you and everyone else on this board a member of a militia?
I believe you (and most of the folks on this board) have pure motives, albeit misguided. But I would love to know how much of the NRA’s agenda relates to freedom vs MONEY. Guns are big business.
Call me arrogant but one of the biggest mistakes of the framers was to compose an amendment that could be so easily distorted by folks who want to profit from guns.
You spelled “ignorant” wrong.
For a concise and easy to read review of both the historical (which goes back much, much farther than you likely realize), and legal origins of the Second Amendment, I suggest “The Second Amendment Primer” by Les Adams.
Its written so that even a Harvard graduate can understand it. Granted, it can’t do a thing to overcome your irrational and deeply ingrained emotional biases, but then, you don’t really expect miracles anyway.
Just for grins, you might actually consider diagramming that sentence in the second amendment. You can delete the first half of that sentence, and still have the point of the thing. Why doesn’t actually matter, now does it? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Oh. By the way, it seems you have problems about free enterprise, too. Here. Watch this. I’ll wait: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NfLUCBZ1is&feature=share
Bob I have no problems with free enterprise as long as its participants (e.g. bankers) don’t cheat.
The video was good. Not the snarky lectures I’m used to seeing conservatives post (Bill Whittle is typical).
Unfortunately the fairness part of the video denies realities that exist. What if the teacher has a predisposition toward believing that girls and blacks are not good at economics and he views all their assignment through that prism? Suddenly fairness goes out the window.
That said, capitalism, free enterprise, whatever you want to call it is the best thing going. That doesn’t make it perfect and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t regulate it.
Four deadly weapons? That’s it? That’s part of the bug up your ass?
I have more deadly weapons in my kitchen knife drawer. I have more deadly weapons in my garage. I have more deadly weapons in my bathroom.
AND I’M NOT EVEN CONSIDERING MY FIREARMS!
Hell, the credit cards I carry in my wallet can be used as deadly weapons.
As for 6,000 rounds of ammunition, I’d call him a slacker. I’ve known people with stockpiles in the hundreds of thousands, who don’t feel that it is enough.
Because, as any knowledgeable and competent firearm owner will tell you, the more practice shooting you do, the better prepared you are. Your muscle memory is better ingrained, and you will shoot better when and if the time comes to defend yourself or others.
Additionally, like gasoline, prices of ammunition can fluctuate; therefore, it makes more fiscal sense to purchase in bulk at low prices and store it than to buy in dribs and drabs at high prices. But, I am sure that someone who doesn’t understand a human being’s intrinsic and fundamental right may have a difficult time comprehending simple economics.
I fear for your child’s preparedness to survive in this world, given the source of [mis]information he/she has to work from.
I fear for your child’s preparedness to survive in this world, given the source of [mis]information he/she has to work from.
I’m glad you brought that up. I really try to avoid indoctrination with my child. I wait to see what conclusions she’s coming to. I avoid ramming my politics down her throat. I want her to come to her own conclusions. That is what bothered me most about this post … the notion that a child should be taught that danger is everywhere and having a gun is the solution. What a depressing message to teach a young child.
Of course, you call it cold reality.
P.S. I might add that millions of people survive in this world having never laid hands on a gun.
And while we’re at it, let’s talk about Switzerland…
Very, very low gun crime rates, and yet damn near every home not only has a firearm, they have those eeeeevvvvvvviiiiilllllll assault rifles (which, by the way, aren’t particularly useful without high-capacity magazines).
The sale of high capacity magazines is part of the problem.
Rutherford said: P.S. I might add that millions of people survive in this world having never laid hands on a gun.
I imagine this poor fellow and his trenchmates might disagree with you, Ruthorford. He is labeled by the Germans as: “The Last Jew in Vinnitsa.”
Japan huh. Why Japan? Why not Germany? Or England?
But Japan.. with sarin gas, with the Japanese cult. Oh yeah!
England and Germany both have a lot fewer gun related homicides than we do. Thank you again for supporting my position.
Yes, R…let’s talk about England…
I mean, if grabbing all the guns there has done such a bang-up job of reducing violent crime, just think what banning knives will do!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/23/knife-crime-statistics
And if you think your balance would be a problem for you to use a handgun to fend off an attacker, imagine what fun you’d have trying to stay on your feet with a knive-wielding yobo who might outweigh you by a couple of stone, eh? Handguns are a great equalizer. But don’t worry…I’m sure that the local constabulatory would have plenty of footage of the attack. Maybe your attacker would get a few years in Brixton for his trouble. I’m sure that would be a great comfort to your family.
R. Germany has had all their guns taken from them. Anyone who owns a gun, is usually a rifle for hunting, which are kept at government own hunting lodges. The guns were pulled after WWII, due to the extreme Nazi-ism issues they were still having.
As was the same for Japan… but Japan’s government was going according to a WWII contract. But they liked it so much they kept the law after the contract expired with the U.S.
If you took a history class, they should have mentioned this.
BTW, Germany has *frequent* high-casualty school shootings. No. Really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
School shootings in Germany. Imagine that.
Pretty overboard on this one, “R”. It’s one thing to disagree on 2nd Amendment privileges and its limits, but quite another to question somebody’s parenting. Not your place unless you’re willing to make solid accusation BIC unfit for parenting.
But since you went there, I’d much rather my children be under the supervision of an armed BIC than I would a parent that thinks Bill Maher on the TV every Friday night is healthy family venue. And don’t give me the screed you ‘screen’ what your child gets to see and hear.
That’s like my old man used to ‘screen’ the monthly subscription to Playboy from his young son. And I only read the articles too.
Rutherford, owning a firearm and beig able to use it to potect yourself and your loved ones, is a RIGHT, NOT a PRIVELEDGE. Driving a car is a priveledge, hence when you screw up while driving (either bad enough, or often enough) the government will revoke your driving priveledge, and rightly so. And no, our govenment is not a theocracy, however, our founding fathers knew that our RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and the preservation there of) are “God Gven” rights. Meaning, they predate government, AND come from a higher authority than government.
As for your presumption to be able to tell our esteemed host how he should raise and instruct his child, through a rational conversation using logic and critical thinking with said child, one can only fervently hope hat you have sired no children of your own.
If our esteemed host didn’t want his advice to his son criticized, he should not have documented it and he did not document it as a warm cozy human interest story. He posted it as a political point.
As I’ve said before, while I bear BIW no grudge and do not wish to hurt his feelings, he used a family moment to make political points. Hence he opens the conversation with his son up to debate.
Furthermore, if you don’t think gun ownership and the lethal potential that has is not a privilege than you have your priorities way backwards. It is SHAMEFUL that we regulate the use of cars better than the use of guns.
Furthermore, if you don’t think gun ownership and the lethal potential that has is not a privilege than you have your priorities way backwards. It is SHAMEFUL that we regulate the use of cars better than the use of guns.
Ok, one more time….the Harvard Graduate’s Guide to Not Rhetorically Pantsing Oneself in a Debate, Chapter 47:
1. Owning a firearm is a RIGHT. That is the point of the whole “Amendment to the Constitution” thingie.
2. Driving a car is NOT a right…it is a priviledge.
3. Number 2 is subject to far more rules, regulations, and laws than Number 1, and yet Number 2 still kills FAR more people annually.
4. Number 3 is one of many reasons why your argument simply isn’t going to have any takers among anyone paying attention.
SHAMEFUL you say?? My dear Rutherford, what I find shameful is your total lack of reading comprehension, and lack of understanding of our Constitution and the Ammendments there of. I humbly suggest a refresher course on the subject, and not the watered down pap they teach nowadays in public schools. I would start with The Federalist Papers, and work your way up from there.
To a free person, much less a Texan :-), 6000 rounds is about right for home consumption in a year and four “deadly” weapons (but I repeat myself) are what one normally carries in one’s pickup and/or on one’s person.
There’s this document called the Declaration of Independence, the second paragraph of which I would commend to you. Whether or not you are religious, and I’m not at all anymore, the very *axioms* of this country’s founding presuppose a “creator” — that’s called “God” to most people — from whom all rights flow, directly to human beings, and from *them* to government, not the other way around.
Note that you don’t *need* God to give the fundamental rights to human beings, which may or may not be *delegated* to government, or not, as those free people see fit. In the eyes of the founding documents of this country, people are *born* free. They *own* the government. As Reagan said, the government is a car, the people drive the car, not the other way around. Yeah, I know, Reagan. Everything He Says Is Evil. (Actually read the wikipedia on ad hominem, too, while you’re reading the text of the Declaration. I’ll wait.)
So, as the current Occupant-in-Chief said once on NPR before he Was Somebody, the constitution is a set of *negative* rights, limits on government, because, besides those limited, specified, *delegated* things, human rights are *infinite*. As written, the Bill of Rights was actually *redundant*. They were not written to be a limit on human action, but on government, which had already had specifically enumerated powers: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.
Yes. The Japanese are Special. So are the Europeans. See “Declaration”, and “Constitution”, above. We’re specialler.
Apparently grammar isn’t pretty at 6:30 in the morning. Life’s a bitch.
No, R.
You keep the rifle in the truck, and yes, people can and do open carry in Texas ALL THE TIME.
I’ve witnessed it myself.
I carry mine all the time… I don’t need a CCL.
I didn’t get the impression Holmes bought the 6000 rounds to last a year. I also find it hard to believe that you walk down your Texas streets with two rifles around your neck and a couple of glocks in plain view, or hidden for that matter.
Try to unscrew your brain from your ass for a second and think about what you’re trying to say, here. Just because someone with evil intent has six thousand rounds, you advocate the, yes, oppression, of *anyone* with six thousand rounds.
Again, see “Hoplophobia”, above.
Actually R., I do walk done the street with my Kalteg in a holster. Why? Because I would rather not be stomped by a moose, or attacked by a dog… and since it is legal for me to kill either one to protect myself, or other people, or my property in my state… who are you to say I cannot?
I fully understand being armed in areas where there are lots of wild animals. You get no argument from me there.
I never said guns have no legitimate use.
We should ban spoons because they are the delivery device of fatty foods.
lawlipops!
I am shocked at Rutherford targeting someone’s parenting skills I’m also kind of perplexed at his apparent inability to clarify his gun position. R you hint that you’re ok with guns (hunting comment) but also put out Japan as an inspiration of sorts. (no guns). So on the larger overall gun topic where do you actually stand?
@BiW when I read the piece I found it paralleled those times and talks I call “learning nuggets” with my kids. I find it a very good thing to “find” the time to interact and engage ones children on light as well as heavy issues. Obviously this lesson won’t live in a vacuum and never be revisited in some manner. Nor shall it fail to be built upon both directly in topic related ways but also the important civc and general character angles. I think R would be advised to exercise his brain quicker in the future for I am pretty sure he knows this lesson isn’t some one of thing.
I just have to chime in on one thread line though. I’m glad the folks here think they and their classmates are so well schooled in being able to to take down a baddie but I have to say I found these comments almost as offensive as Rutherford knock on BiW parenting.
Practice makes perfect is a ruse in the arena of gunfights. The variables are infinite and I don’t care how gung ho a civilian is when the s#!^ hits the fan nothing is guaranteed.
I haven’t looked into the Aurora shooting details, specifically the body armor issue. I think folks should remember back to the LAPD incident against the bank robbers in North Hollywood in the 90’s before they are assured they could do something with their walk around town piece.
“The variables are infinite and I don’t care how gung ho a civilian is when the s#!^ hits the fan nothing is guaranteed.”
Alfie, I don’t think anyone said otherwise. The responses reflect R’s ridiculous assertions and speculation to the contrary, i.e. it is never better to be armed. Of course we are all just speculating. However, I don’t carry a firearm but can say that I’d rather have been sitting next to someone that was armed than R cowering and hunting for his cell phone when the shit hit the fan. I have been in too many situations when the shit hit the fan to fantasize about the police coming to the rescue in time.
Given R’s frailty, he of all people should consider how he might defend himself or his family beyond calling for help if the shit did hit the fan. I personally prefer to kill with my bare hands. 😆
Tigre why aren’t you concerned that the person sitting next to you might accidentally shoot you?
And let me repeat, my “frailty” is the very reason I don’t own a gun. If you cowboys can recommend a gun to me that doesn’t have serious kickback I might consider it. Well, no I wouldn’t … but I’d be interested in the answer just the same.
Guns are sold for one reason only, to wound or kill.
OMG Rutherford!!
When you’re in a hole too deep to get out you need to stop digging.
THAT was a stretch? You’ve got to be kidding.
Two points.
First I have no doubt that BiW is a loving and devoted father and nothing I’ve said in this thread is meant to contradict that.
Second, a very simple question for those in attendance. Should crazy people own guns and if not, what do we do about it?
R,
Again, I think you keep tripping on what you don’t know when you say things like this….
IF someone has been committed, it frequently does show up in a background check. However, in this case, the evidence thus far indicates that Mr. Crazytown hadn’t been a guest at anyone’s laughing academy, which is why he apparently purchased without any issue.
Addendum to last comment …. “intellectual child abuse” was used for rhetorical fire. It was ill advised. BiW, I apologize.
Hate to let you in on this but we don’t live in a theocracy and God let a six year old child die just cos she wanted to see a f*cking movie. Don’t even go there.
I imagine that whole thing about “One nation under God” just pisses you off to no end doesn’t it?
I don’t lose sleep over it but it doesn’t really befit a secular nation. 😉
Since about 85 percent of the people in the US believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and most of the rest believe in divinity of one kind or another, it’s hard to call the population of the US “secular”. I expect that you and I are the only “secular” people in this discussion, frankly.
Be that as it may, you seem to have as much trouble with the establishment clause as you do with the second amendment. The establishment clause is just that, it prevents established religion, like, say, the Church of England. There is no “Church of the United States”, no matter how much liberals like you are trying to make “Transnational Progressivism”, or whatever it is you people call Feudalism By Other Means these days, America’s new established religion.
Frankly, atheism *is* a religion.
I agree that atheism is a religion.
Rutherford there are plenty of people who own firearms and it has nothing to do with killing and wounding.
In classic leftist fashion you are putting forth the fallacy that somehow the gun,the inanimate object is the problem.This is the incorrect perspective.
You are absolutely a slave to your feelings.
Those two points have a lot of baggage with them and would take up a lot of time and space.
Inanimate object don’t act on their own. Of course not. The second amendment should not be a green light for Holmes. The second amendment should not be a green light for gang bangers in ghettos.
The folks on this board want to do NOTHING to prevent this type of thing from happening again. The only solution is a dangerous exchange of gunfire between civilians. Is that really the only solution?
Clearly the problem is too much freedom.
*eyeroll*
Rutherford, the answer you seek is not acceptable, because you’ve made it clear time after time that this right should be subject to a limitation that is “reasonable” by your standard, and that you would limit other rights based on your standards (remember our conversations about the Hosana Tabor ruling?)
Putting aside what should be obvious (that someone who is opposed to the exercise of a right to the point of irrational hostility has no business defining what is and is not a “reasonable” exercise of that right), the irony of you being so conservative regarding the exercise of freedom would be laughable if it didn’t underlie a nasty truth you seem to have failed to accept: You don’t get the benefits of freedom without the risks that go with it.
The rest of the commenters here get that. But then, they are also resigned to the truth that anyone set on doing mayhem can find a way to do mayhem. As I’ve told you before, any idiot with a basic knowledge of chemistry can go to the supermarket and buy the makings of a bomb. Box cutters, which I used daily when I worked for a supermarket in high school, were used to turn airliners into missles. Someone who knows what they are doing with a bow and arrow can be deadly (and quiet) in a perch near a crowded place.
You can’t ban everything, and as I already pointed out with the link re: England above, if people want to do bad things, nothing will stop them. The answer isn’t to ban all guns, or only allow what you think is appropriate for hunting. The answer lies within fixing ourselves, but sadly, people such as yourself resist any answer that ranges further than the tip of your own nose; until that changes, the world will remain more dangerous than it need be, and you will find that the rest of us have no interest in surrendering our means of defending ourselves from those threats. It doesn’t always mean successfully doing so, but the difference between a citizen and subject is meeting danger on your feet instead of your knees.
Could you explain how everyone carrying constitutes “fixing ourselves”? Honestly, I’d almost be more on board with you if you said more folks need to go back to church. Is everyone carrying, a step toward encouraging an appreciation for human life, an appreciation that thieves, rapists and psychos have obviously lost?
Well I asked earlier what your position was since you seem to live all along the spectrum. Hunting ok/Japan many Euro nations good too.
Please tell me where you living bro??? I think you kind of need to pick one
I hope you brought a change of shoes, Rutherford, because you really stepped in it this time.
the notion that a child should be taught that danger is everywhere and having a gun is the solution. What a depressing message to teach a young child.
Less depressing than your message, which is “Die helpless at the hands of that danger, and there is nothing you should do about it.”?
The world IS a dangerous place, from evil people, from acts of Nature, from accidents, even from bears and snakes and alligators. Being prepared to deal with that “danger”, whether it is having a gun, or knowing First Aid, or never traveling alone in the woods, to driving “defensively”, is what being a responsible adult means. I carry one of my guns just about everywhere I go – as far as I can tell, there is no “safe place” that some nut won’t decide is a good place to try and kill people.
Look into a .380 ACP, Rutherford. That 70+ y.o. grampa drove off those two thugs at a restaurant with one.
And I won’t even bother with your insulting BiW’s parenting. You didn’t step over the line there – you did a broad jump.
Rutherford do you really believe that calling an area gun free means the bad guys won’t have a gun? I may just be a dummy from a state school but I can figure out that this is not viable. Why do you think New York Public Schools ALL have metal detectors? Why are Chicago shootings constant(cook county has very restrictive gun laws BTW)?
Sorry I just cannot accept that the answer to bad people having guns is for good people to have them also. That means just more guns in more hands and more potential for violence.
Typical progressive. You can’t accept facts. Tell us just how you will keep guns out of the hands of bad people, given that no method attempted to date, including banning guns, has worked. The ONLY realistic solution is for good people to be ready to stop them.
more guns in more hands and more potential for violence So it is “violence” when somebody uses a gun to stop somebody else from killing (more) people?
And as an intellectual exercise, please complete the logical conclusion of these two comments from you:
Guns are sold for one reason only, to wound or kill.
I never said guns have no legitimate use.
Hint: To wound or kill is a legitimate use of a gun.
Dog I believe when I said that I was referring to guns with high capacity clips, not hunting rifles.
Dog I believe when I said that I was referring to guns with high capacity clips, not hunting rifles.
Alluding to “facts” not in evidence, as a lawyer would say.
Be that as it may, my point seems to have gone right over your head (quelle surprise!).
Guns are sold for one reason only, to wound or kill.
I actually agree with that statement – that is the intended purpose of a gun, especially a handgun. And I have no issue with that – in fact, that is why I own some guns, including handguns.
It is my right to decide if and when to use a gun to shoot somebody. It is then society’s right to review that decision and see if they agree with my choice.
It is my right to decide if and when to use a gun to shoot somebody. It is then society’s right to review that decision and see if they agree with my choice.
Very odd logic. So does every crime fall under the “rights” banner? It is my right to decide whether or not to rape that woman. It is then society’s right to review that decision and see if they agree with my choice.
Preposterous.
No, No, and Hell No. You are attempting to stipulate that shooting someone is a crime, in and of itself. That is NOT true. Rape is – shooting someone is not. So your argument is invalid. Or are you going to claim that I have no right to self-defense?
Gun control – the theory that finding a woman murdered in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to the woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
Quoting the troll here:
“That is what bothered me most about this post … the notion that a child should be taught that danger is everywhere and having a gun is the solution. What a depressing message to teach a young child.
Of course, you call it cold reality.
P.S. I might add that millions of people survive in this world having never laid hands on a gun.”
I’ll tell you what, Rutherford… You go ahead and teach your precious daughter that life is chock full of sunshine and bad things are fiction. And when she comes home at age 14, strung out and begging for an abortion, I am sure that the supportive loving parent you are, will allow it and shove her into a caring loving rehab facility. Because they work so well. /s
Meanwhile, I will prepare my child/children to face reality that bad things can happen to good people. The only way to survive is to develop and maintain situational awareness, and have the necessary skills to extract yourself from a dangerous situation.
I will agree with you that guns are not THE solution. But they are A solution. A reasonable and appropriate solution for some circumstances.
Making good decisions, and being prepared to deal with all of the consequences of those decisions, good or bad, is the essence of living.
P.S. I might add that millions of people have been killed in this world, having forfeited the right to protect themselves to the state, and usually by the guns of said state.
Clete, I may be a lot of things but troll is not one of them. Are your kids grown yet? If not, don’t get so cocky. All sorts of factors play into a kid getting into trouble or not. If I were you, I’d keep some of that rehab money handy just in case. … or better yet bail money for when the kid shoots the wrong person playing self appointed deputy. 😉
http://qkme.me/3q7emu
First post, BIW.
Marko Kloos nailed it perfectly and concisely in his essay, “Why Guns are Civilization.”
http://smith-wessonforum.com/concealed-carry-self-defense/169274-hey-supreme-court-marko-kloos-why-gun-civilization.html
If the ordinary citizen is unarmed, he is easy prey for the young predator, gang-banger, anybody who is young, fit, aggressive – and in fact is more likely to be attacked because those people KNOW he is unarmed.
The viral video of the attempted Internet cafe robbery that made the rounds last week shows exactly what happens when a couple of young punk neighbors meet a frail old man with a pistol. I’d like to see more videos just like it.
PF and BiC, I kind of liked this one:
I am gonna watch this today. I love TED talks. I’m kind of surprised you looked there for anything … TED is considered the home of liberal eggheads.
R, I watch TED all the time. I didn’t know it was a liberal hell hole. In fact, I thought TED rejected a speaker that you were impressed with (for reasons that sane people wouldn’t understand) becuase it was too political.
In any event, this is not a “great one,” nor does it directly address the conversation but I think it’s worth a watch nonetheless since it’ll represent a different point of view for you (I think).
Ahhh glad you recognized that it does not directly address the conversation. I sat here for 17 minutes waiting for him to advocate an armed citizenry only to hear him say “a government monopoly on guns” and to advocate the PROPER use of guns by the military and police to protect the people.
So yes … a very good video that went quite far to prove my point.
P.S. About the TED rejected speaker … damn you have a good memory. Kudos.
R, I don’t think it proved your point. I think it speaks to the need to be armed and why, especially with the anecdote up front.
I thought it was interesting that he opened by saying basically “does this gun make you nervous?” I yelled back at the PC “YES!!!!” It crossed my mind, what if the Chief suddenly flipped a bit and started firing on the audience? I know there was less than a 1% chance of that happening.
Who knows, maybe my fear of guns does border on irrational? They freak me out like snakes freak out some other folks.
P.S. It’s a favorite joke topic of liberals but let’s get serious … Cheney did shoot his friend in the face and he was an experienced hunter.
So, the following happened as I left the apartment to take my kid to gymnastics. I said to my better half “well at least I got one thing out of this gun debate on the blog …. a couple of good gun recommendations.” To this she replied, “I will NOT have a gun in my house.”
Poor kid … she has two wimps for parents. 😉
What utter nonsense …. a movie theater is NOT a dangerous place.
Neither is a store…until it is, R.
Oh look, an average citizen putting a stop to someone making the store a dangerous place…and the police praised him! OMG! Don’t they know that “average people” have no business having a firearm?
Could you explain how everyone carrying constitutes “fixing ourselves”? Honestly, I’d almost be more on board with you if you said more folks need to go back to church. Is everyone carrying, a step toward encouraging an appreciation for human life, an appreciation that thieves, rapists and psychos have obviously lost?
I suggest that you re-read the paragraph you think that you’re responding to. I guess a more detailed walk-thru is in order.
A reiteration of a basic truth that gun-fearing wussies and those who don’t trust their fellow-citizens with freedom that they themselves fear to exercise constantly fail to grasp: The human heart, when left to its own devices, has a great capacity to conceive and execute evil acts, regardless of the instrumentality available to its owner, largely because the good intentioned tyrants always fail to account for human ingenuity and ambition when they are legislating the immoral in a suit of good intentions.
Why? Because the last set of gun laws in Colorado didn’t stop this, and no where in the Second Amendment will you find reference to “hunting”…the language is MUCH, MUCH broader than that.
I know you like to believe in such myths as “Good without God”, but in any truly “godless” regime, evil is not arrested or eliminated; instead it often becomes mainstreamed into the culture, and policy of government…whether Stalin or Mao, evil will kill you when you don’t choose to dance to its tune. It is a cancer that is growing in our society, and as long as too many choose to remain deluded, the world will become more evil, not less. Carrying doesn’t fix us, but it certainly can help to protect us, especially in an environment that would make Orwell scream “It was a warning, not a how-to manual, you jackasses!”
It doesn’t always mean successfully doing so, but the difference between a citizen and subject is meeting danger on your feet instead of your knees.
And those of us who are believers tend to view life as the greatest gift we can be given…after reading the parable of the talents, who can rightfully say that a complete abdication of the personal defense of that gift is any less offensive than rejecting it outright and rushing into the presence of he who gave it to us unbidden?
This whole thing, much like Columbine did, has just been blown up with rhetoric and emotionally based innuendo.
That said, as many know, I lived in the area for many years, and was involved in EMS planning etc. One thing that I did learn over the years is that all the laws in the world will not stop a determined maniac from wrecking havoc upon the defenseless. But a 357 or 12 gauge or an AR 15 in trained and willing hands can lessen the carnage to a great extent.
The movie theater was a “Free Fire Zone.” So legal CCW people that may have been there were not armed. High capacity Magazines? No legal use..? Those idiots must have never heard of swarm attacks. Guns are just plain evil? Guns, collectively, have the same IQ as a chunk of rock. “Assault” weapons have no use other than killing people? As noted in a comment above, they do. Not to mention that the Second Amendment is not about hunting… Body armor, aside that the items worn were not body armor, there isn’t any on the open market that I am aware of that will stop a 300 mag…
One more senseless tragedy that we must live with, learn from, and get over.
Well of course you know BiW that I vehemently disagree that belief in God is some prerequisite for moral behavior. On the contrary, while you point to Mao and Stalin, any number of supernatural believers have led their flocks astray with tragic consequences.
If we’re going to talk “fixing” why don’t we try to do a better job of not letting people fall through the cracks of the mental health system? Holmes’ own mother said he was a nutjob. I think before we execute him (which sadly we probably should) we figure out whether any better mental health intervention might have stopped this rampage.
And you know what? I will fully postulate that that would be a much better road to go down than to ban guns.
Well of course you know BiW that I vehemently disagree that belief in God is some prerequisite for moral behavior.
It’s ok, R.
I’m used to you being wrong.
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/officers_peril.htm
But “average citizens” have no business owning guns!
BiW I responded over at my place but neglected to respond to your UPDATE over here.
Holmes shopped at multiple internet sites and was wearing all sorts of stuff. Just because he was wearing a vest as an outer layer that was not bullet proof does not mean he wasn’t wearing something underneath that was.
That particular vendor was understandably distancing himself from the crime. The official story remains that the shooter wore body armor. That is what I am standing by until the official story changes.
From BiW’s article: Driving to work one morning, Jim Povia, of Sarasota, Florida, saw a state trooper with his service pistol drawn, confronting a trio of male suspects during a traffic stop. Povia, a right-to-carry permit holder, pulled over and grabbed his .40 cal. pistol and went to the aid of the officer.
Could someone please tell me how this cop holding a gun on three suspects didn’t get freaked out when some stranger (not a cop) approached him with gun drawn? What did the guy say … “Officer, I’m here to help you.”
I’m frankly amazed the cop didn’t tell the guy … for his own safety … to get the hell away.
Frankly, I’m surprised the cop didn’t kill him. I sure wouldn’t ask any questions if it were me. Maybe the guy pulled up and yelled out to the cop first. Certainly there is something there we don’t know.
LOL …. and PF take your scenario a step further. Guy pulls up and yells to the cop “do you need help? I’m armed.” And the cop says yes???? WTF???? If I were the police chief and I learned one of my cops let a civilian “assist” him by holding a loaded weapon on a suspect, I’d fire that cop so fast his head would spin.
You know what folks? If our police departments are in such lousy condition that they eagerly accept help from armed civilians, then I completely concede my argument and I surrender. We should all be armed if the cops are in that sorry a shape.
P.S. However, I’ve heard that the folks MOST concerned about legally armed civilians are the police.
In CT, there’s law for that type of thing. If the LEO asks a civilian to assist, the citizen has a certain amount of immunity.
Sec. 53a-22. Use of physical force in making arrest or preventing escape
….a person who has been directed by a peace officer or authorized official of the Department of Correction to assist such peace officer or official to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such peace officer’s or official’s direction.
“P.S. However, I’ve heard that the folks MOST concerned about legally armed civilians are the police.”
Who’d you hear that from?
R, there are tons of stories armed citizens aiding cops in peril. Try your Google then let me know when you’re ready to concede.
Tigre, your legal citation doesn’t cover harm to the person lending assistance. We’ve got a cop keeping three folks at bay … that’s one on three. If all three draw and shoot, the armed assistant goes down. Can the police force then be sued?
Tigre I can google till the cows come home. Let’s stop playing politics and use some common sense. Depending on the situation an armed civilian “helping” just complicates the matter for the policeman. I also submit it introduces (per my earlier comment) all sorts of legal liability issues.
R, since you won’t Google, there are large number of states that have laws purporting to require an armed citizen to assist an officer if called upon to do so. I doubt that those could be enforced if disobeyed, but I don’t get how your hypothetical add anything to the conversation. You were going to concede something. . .
As for whether a citizen can sue the police force one might wonder, more would need to be known about what happened. And frankly I don’t get what difference it makes to this debate.
Truth of the matter is that cops find themselves in situations where the assistance of an armed civilian has saved the lives of cops and other people. I am confident the opposite is true too. Do with that what you will. I just know on this subject how much you love absolutes that don’t exist.
And here I show you a video of an old geezer chasing off and shooting at a couple of armed robbers at an Internet cafe that were holding the dreaded assault guns and your response? “Well that guy was lucky — it could have turned out differently (or something to that effect). Really? No shit? Those guys might have panicked and shot everyone in the place too. That’d have been unlucky and different too.
My biggest problem with what you’ve said is that, while plenty opinionated, you don’t know a damn thing about any this. That’s why you have to use hypotheticals to back-fill the hole left that is your ignorance.
Other than that, we get it: you’re scared of guns, and like all good liberals you seek to exploit a tragedy to further gun control debate and to blame the caricature you have made of the right.
Never a showing that your proposed solutions would’ve resulted in a different outcome. Never. Just an inference that gun control is a solution becuase guns were involved.
Let us know when you’re prepared to make a real case why restricting second amendment rights is not just a reasonable solution, but that it is any solution at all. I am not a gun advocate, don’t own a handgun. I am just tired of the Pavlovian liberal straw man arguments that follow every tragedy.
Oh please get off the exploitation BS. The exploitation started with this very blog post to further the NRA agenda.. But I assure you, based on all this back and forth, I do expect to write my very own exploitative post in the very near future. 😉
Oh I can’t wait. I am certain it will be well-informed.
It won’t need to be well informed. It will be more of a question than a statement and more of a philosophical nature.
“It won’t need to be well informed. It will be more of a question than a statement and more of a philosophical nature.”
Well, that’d be one way to avoid having to know what you’re talking about. 😆
Does it involve Palin’s culpability?
Does it involve Palin’s culpability?
Wow you’re good. Actually I’ve unearthed secret documents that tie Palin to BOTH Loughner AND Holmes!!! 😉
Brian Ross already covered the Tea Party connection.
Any chance you’ll actually try and understand the second amendment and its origins? Your taker on it is a departure from that Constitutional unpublished scholar Obama.
Oh please get off the exploitation BS. The exploitation started with this very blog post to further the NRA agenda..
No, this post shared an honest conversation with a 12 year old that had been brought on by 48 hours of hyperventilation by leftist pundits and politicians who have never read the Second Amendment and who hope you haven’t either. These are part of the same crowd who immediately try to exploit any shooting where no one shot back by blaming it on (a)Sarah Palin (b) the Tea Party (c)extreme right wingerz (d)the Republican Party (e) any one who actually owns a gun and knows how to use it (f) any or all the above, and who take to Twitter, FaceChimp, and other social media to furiously tap out breathless declarations/condemnations that rarely have anything to do with fact, but meet the narrative that they want to tell every time.
I was counterbalancing those who were “exploiting” it, you ding-a-ling.
Let’s stop playing politics and use some common sense.
Shut up, he explained.
“I was counterbalancing those who were “exploiting” it, you ding-a-ling.”
😆 😆 😆
“Depending on the situation an armed civilian “helping” just complicates the matter for the policeman. I also submit it introduces (per my earlier comment) all sorts of legal liability issues.”
Go ahead. Tell us about them. What do you know that you’d like to share with the class?
A. Rutherford: You’re a moron. B. The 12 year old has more intelligence than 99% of the politicians who run this country.