Gun laws we really need
The Dayton Daily News has a story about a group of church leaders planning a prayer vigil in front of the Bill Goodmans Gun and Knife show which is held at Hara Arena. They are calling for “criminal background checks on all firearm transactions”- which is already done- unless you are a private seller meeting a private buyer there. All dealers who have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) are required to do the checks.
Representatives from the churches that make up the Anchored in Peace network…will formally announce their plans to have a Prayer Rally at 1 p.m. on May 2 at the corner of Shiloh Springs Road and Wolf Road, in front of Hara Arena… (they) want(…) to bring attention and raise support for the passage of House Resolution 2324, which is the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009, … which requires criminal background checks on all firearm transactions occurring at gun shows, was introduced by U.S. Rep. Michael Castle, R-Delaware.
via Criminal background checks at gunshows wanted by group of churches.
However, there are much more important things that we could and should be doing to solve these problems.
- The crime of trying to buy a gun as a convicted felon- isn’t prosecuted currently. A very small number of people get in trouble for this.
- Being caught with a firearm under disability isn’t treated harshly enough either.
But my real gripe is- you can’t fill a SCUBA tank with air in this country without having successfully completing an intensive training course- where the only person you’ll kill is yourself- yet, we still have ZERO requirements for gun safety training before ownership.
The best part of the Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) license is that it finally addresses the issues of proper firearms training.
A waiver should be granted for any properly discharged veterans, who have had proper firearms training- but, everyone else needs to take a proper safety course.
This hasn’t even been discussed by the legislature.
Yet, you can’t ride an under 50cc scooter in Ohio without a drivers license, you can’t cut hair without a barbers license, you can’t appraise homes without an appraisers licensee… oh, wait…
(I hope to see lots of other stupid licensing laws added in the comments of this post)
The Old Bandito will also be holding a prayer vigil in front of the old barn on Shiloh Springs. But the Old Bandito will be beseeching the almighty for some solid, hard-checking, old-school hockey players on the Gems roster this September. That is, if the Gems and the IHL come back at all. The rumor mill has this league and our team in jeporady. But gun sale checks? Not in the constitution. Nice? Yeah, when the Old Bandito was younger, they had gun and hunting safety courses in the schools, since the first day of deer season was considered a holiday. But there is a tendency among the urban elite to equate every urban problem as if it were universal. A few years back, a rural high school, down on its gridiron luck for a couple of seasons, put a picture of its starting seniors on its program carrying rifles with the season motto “back in the hunt.” The urban transplants to this community had a collective cow. The old-timers told them to shut up and enjoy the football season. They weren’t about to change their lifestyles because some Dayton transplants had a bizarre sense of the second amendment. But it sounds like David Esrati is just advocating just another tired old (not to mention unconstitutional) restriction to gun ownership…
PADI just needs to get better lobbyists ;) . My husband and I attended the BG Gun & Knife Show for the first time a month or so ago. It was just like Computerfest, but the people didn’t smell quite as bad. The only place anyone has to worry about running into me and a firearm is in my own home, and at that time, my lack of training isn’t the biggest problem they will have.
“Yet, you can’t ride an under 50cc scooter in Ohio without a drivers license, you can’t cut hair without a barbers license, you can’t appraise homes without an appraisers licensee… oh, wait…”
Not true. I have been on a scooter and I most certainly did not have a drivers license at the time. So it is possible. As far as hair cuts go, first Greg does not have a barbers license and I think he does a fairly good job on you David. It’s no perfect Army buzz, but it is nice. The FloBee does not require a license and has allowed thousands in Alabama and Mississippi to cut hair for years. My Mom loves to cut hair….. And a lot of fellas in shops in Dayton don’t have a barbers lic………..
I appraised my home last week. It is worth a million bucks to me, but as luck would have it the tax lovin’ government assigns a value to it without even so much as stopping by, so that is what I pay tax on. Maybe appraised years ago, before I bought it, my thousands and thousands of dollars of work are not even considered in the appraisal…. oh well, maybe we should have thought it was stupid to make laws and force banks to lend to people who had bad credit ratings… now my house is only worth what someone else will pay for it. Darn!
Licenses are a waste of time. Most crime with guns are “purchased” via black market, so they won’t bother to get any training. Yet another big brother episode via esrati.com. Yes, there are a lot of things government requires to “license” and yes they are all stupid. Ok, most are stupid.
Now a license to have a kid may be more like it……. :)
David – why, oh why do you think criminals will obey gun laws. The only thing these laws do is make law abiding citizens jump through more hoops. My wife and I are both CCW holders and I agree that the 12 hour course was needed and excellent. It was 8 hours of the NRA basic pistol course, 2 hours of legal teachings, and two hours range time. Needed and excellent to carry concealed – not own a gun. T
By the way SCUBA tanks aren’t protected by the Constitution of the United States. I enjoy your blog and thoughts but you have a tenancy towards desiring to expanding the same government systems you gripe about.
Furthermore, where’s the proof that criminals go to these shows and buy truck loads full of weapons? I’ll bet you a dollar to a dime, barring the occasional incident, that a vast majority of people at these guns shows are law abiding citizens. There are already enough laws on the books to deal with criminals. But do the criminals care?
As a CCW holder, and a firearms owner I feel like I have had to jump through enough hoops to do what the constitution says the federal government shall not infringe. Gun control is not about firearms safety it’s about control.
As Robert V. has pointed out on this site before, people concede the fundamentals, like coercion is not a bad thing. Example: Other people have the right to vote and tell you that you can’t legally fill a SCUBA tank. If you try to fill a SCUBA tank wizzout ze propar papa wurk (my attempt at a bad Nazi accent) you can be reprimanded by society, because they are more important and knowledgeable than are you. Then those people extend that “logic” to defend their desire to coerce and prohibit other activities and behaviors.
If I have never committed a crime, and you have no reason to believe that I have committed a crime, why should I be treated as a suspect? Why should I be forced to prove that I am innocent of a crime in order to engage in a private business transaction?
David E. actually brings up a good point. Prosecute felons trying to purchase firearms or in possession of a firearm to the fullest extent of the law. Throw them away forever. They are the criminals; they are dangerous. It is funny that while the government can’t properly manage even the laws they have on the books (like felons caught in possession of firearms or trying to purchase firearms) they are going to make more and more people abridge their ever increasing number of laws and regulations.
Government fails to do their job, protect people from criminals, and instead tells the people that they are the cause of the problem, they aren’t restricted enough to allow the government to properly protect them.
There’s 200 million + guns in the U.S.
The genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back.
Why people continue to even talk about the issue as if anything will put that genie back, I have no idea.
Slight thread hijack but funny: The state official in charge of oversight of CCW permits in Florida, whose name appears on every license? Charles Bronson. Not THE, but hysterical, anyhow! =D
My understadning is that the NRA supports more rigorous enforcement of current gun laws.
Too many people are able to get around background checks, like the Virginia Tech shooter, and even licensed CCW people sometimes show themselves to be too stupid to be allowed to carry (ref. McVey, who “wanted to see Obama” while armed).
Unless and until we employ enough cops and repair the faulty systems so that existing laws can be enforced rigorously, I see no benefit in more legislation. That said, it seems to me that the greatest benefit would come from making it possible for law enforcement to track firearms ownership more quickly; then the next time a mentally unstable individual starts shooting at cars from Columbus-area overpasses, we might get an earlier apprehension.
This post has been removed by the moderator because the writer has long hair.
David on twitter:
Which linked an article titled “Imagine if the Tea Party was Black”. It’s not that hard to imagine:
What color would you say that guy who “still has some freedoms” is?
I just don’t get it, the ‘Loophole’ is that licensed gun sellers and unlicensed gun sellers can set up on the same floor and conduct business. Anybody who thinks the unlicensed sellers are offering guns from their home collection is wrong, these guys sell at the same volume but circumvent permitting and background process.
So here comes Congress with H.R. 2324: ‘To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows’. Why do they have to make everything so complex and obscure? I could rewrite H.R. 2324 in 30 seconds to say ‘To require a Federal Firearms License for all gun sales transacted at gun shows’. I understand the swap meet tradition but for Christ’s sake we’re talking about guns here not wind chimes or turquoise jewelry. I don’t get why people who call themselves responsible gun owners so fiercely defend the right of every irresponsible jackass to walk in and buy a gun like it was house plant to set on the coffee table. The object here is to have one less four year old peering down the barrel with his thumb on the trigger, to have one less fifteen year old leaning out the back window of an Impala shooting up somebody’s house, what’s so difficult about it?
I don’t get why people who call themselves responsible gun owners so fiercely defend the right of every irresponsible jackass to walk in and buy a gun like it was house plant to set on the coffee table. (Southwest Rick)
That’s an easy one Rick. We defend the gun rights of everyone with the same vigor we defend the free speech rights of everyone, including David Esrati. And we all know how wrong and irresponsible he can be. The founders were pretty emphatic about the importance of that second amendment Rick. And “shall not be infringed” is a pretty unambiguous statement. Even though, some historians declare, the founders came pretty close to extending this right of possession to house plants, wind chimes and turquoise jewelry….
Shortwest Rick. Sorry about that mistake on your handle.
@Rick: bravo!
@Will: bravo for being in favor of CCW training. Why do you think people shouldn’t have any training just because they’re not conceiling the gun? Of course I’m afraid of criminals, but I’m also afraid of rank, untrained amateurs who buy a gun (or six) because of some other shortcoming in their life, or because Glenn Beck or Michael Savage told them they aren’t a real American if they don’t have one. Training and licensing should be manditory for firearm ownership, period. I don’t care if you never take it out of your home — bullets don’t respect property lines.
Scuba tanks don’t require training or licensing in the Constitution because they weren’t invented yet. The Constitution is a wonderful and inspired document, but it is not the end all of law or common sense. My interpretation is that it gave everyone the right to own a musket, not an Uzi. One shot every 30-60 seconds, if you’re skilled. Arguing that it gives you completely unrestricted access to the latest firearms of today is silly at best. 50 caliber sniper rifle? Come on. Fully automatic machine guns? Not likely. Do you think the constitution entitles you to nuclear weapons or ICBMs? That’s the logical extension of your already over-stretched argument, isn’t it?
God help me, but DAVID IS RIGHT on this issue. :-)
Brian:
You’re right, .50 caliber is pretty small:
You also had to go uphill both ways and the sheep ran scared back then too…
And “shall not be infringed” is a pretty unambiguous statement.
Actually, Bandit, people do disagree about the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand. The Court stated:
In a more recent Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court did strike down portions of DC’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, but that case was not unanimous — 4 Justices found no conflict between the Second Amendment and DC’s ordinance. Moreover, the ordinance was not completely struck down, meaning that even the Justices who did see some conflicts between portions of the law and the Second Amendment thought nonetheless that the Second Amendment still allows for some regulating of firearms.
If the Second Amendment so “unambiguously” meant that there could be no restrictions whatsoever on ownership of firearms, you’d think there wouldn’t be so much debate, even amongst constitutional scholars, about it.
200 million +
The argument is moot.
Ice Bandit, I’ve always enjoyed you posts, today is the first time I find myself whole heartedly at odds.
I cannot believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to be interpreted as the right to keep and bear arms with no personal responsibility.
Personal Responsibility? That ship sailed with the start of the Liberal moverment.
Who cares really….. I am getting close to 50 years old, have only seen a shot gun twice, all others have been on TV. If you negociate the cones of life you may never see a gun, or very few. And criminals don’t want to take a safety class….
Shortwest,
I don’t want to speak for Ice, but understand that he isn’t saying that you don’t have personal responsibility for the results of your having a gun or the use of the gun. He is saying that, as a citizen of the United States, in good standing with law enforcement, you have the right to “bear arms”. This is in every way similar to the right to “free speech”. You can say what you want until you damage someone else with libel or slander. Similarly, you can bear arms all you want until you damage someone else or break a law that makes you a felon.
The issue is that you have the right to do what you want until someone else can demonstrate that you “hit them in the nose” with your gun, bullet, or slander. Governmental preempting the inalienable rights of a person because it is possible that some other person will abuse the rights of another is inexplicable and much more dangerous than one crazy person with a bazooka.
Evidence:
Turkey 1911 – 1.5 million deaths
Soviet Union 1929 – 20 million deaths
China 1935 – 20 million deaths
Germany 1938 – 13 million deaths
Cambodia 1956 – 1 million deaths
Guatemala 1964 – 100 thousand deaths
Uganda 1970 – 300 thousand deaths
all at the hands of those who took away the right to protect yourself.
Looks like Thomas Jefferson was right when he said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Especially when natural rights are as poorly understood as they seem to be by many of those who frequent this site. Lets look to Ben Franklin for a thought. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb denying enforcement of the vote.”
There’s 200 million + guns in the U.S.
The genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back.
Why people continue to even talk about the issue as if anything will put that genie back, I have no idea.
So let me see if I understand your argument (which seems to be separate and apart from Second Amendment interpretation), Drexel Dave. Because there are already millions of guns in the United States, there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the ownership of firearms? We might as well go so far as to legalize assault weapons (the outlawing of which the Supreme Court did not overturn in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller) — is that what you’re saying?
By the same token then, considering that in 2008 1,702,537 drug arrests (847,863 of which were marijuana-related) were made, we should therefore repeal all laws banning recreational drugs and have no regulation whatsoever of their sale or distribution? After all, “the [drug] genie is out of the bottle,” right?
Or instead would you say that yes, trying to ban recreational drug use altogether is a waste of time but that some regulation of drug manufacturing/agriculture, drug distribution/sales and drug use might yet have some purpose?
I personally recommend the NRA sponsored “First Steps” gun safety class at the Vandalia Armory. Lesson #1 – “Bullets don’t respect property lines”. There’s also a reason that shotguns are preferred for home protection over handguns – the goal is to stop the intruder in his tracks if he gets too close, not kill your neighbor. If I find an intruder in my home in the middle of the night, my neighbors have less to fear of the blast going through my brick wall, across the yard, and through their brick wall, than the intruder has about me disembowling him.
A 4 year old shoots themselves (it happened here in Vandalia just last year) because an adult responsible for both them and the firearm didn’t do what they were supposed to do (as I recall, that is Lesson #2 in the First Steps ). The 15 year old punk shooting up a house is going to have a gun regardless of the law. Neither of these situations illustrate responsible gun ownership. Shame on them, not shame on me.
My God how many times and how uninspired are supposed educated people. The Constitution of the Democratic REPUBLIC guaranteed certain rights no matter how stupid they may seem to the rabble (majority). Anyone who cites individual rulings from the Supreme Court without recognizing that it is a political body is ludicrous. I can bet you can find plenty of decisions any rational individual would agree were ill founded. In addition the rulings you cite are post prohibition when the whining FBI complained about the fire power of the alcohol importers (do you see a parallel with the current drug war – Mexico anyone, bueller, bueller).
PURE and simple the people were allowed to have ANY Weapon the GOVERNMENT can have PERIOD. No infringement, no paperwork, no restrictions. The framers studied more governments than the current rabble on this site and had it figured out pretty well. So screw the motorcycle argument. IT IS A RIGHT! The Framers understood the MAD Doctrine! As Drexel says shut up already. The ministers ought to be preaching to only have the KIDS you can take care of, instead of trying to breed Jesus back into existence. But preachers are wimps and cannot confront the people who put the shekels in the plate.
My interpretation is that it gave everyone the right to own a musket, not an Uzi. One shot every 30-60 seconds, if you’re skilled. Arguing that it gives you completely unrestricted access to the latest firearms of today is silly at best. 50 caliber sniper rifle? Come on. Fully automatic machine guns? Not likely. The same argument could be made that the First Amendment applies only to moveable-block printing presses, as the internet didn’t exist yet. Smoothbore muskets were the standard weapons of war at the time, rifles being particularly new and deadly by comparison, and both were owned privately…and the battle of Lexington and Concord was initiated when the British moved to seize a privately-owned cannon…so that should give you an idea of the intent of the amendment. Silly is the assertion that the militia of today should be hamstrung by 250 year old technology. Any intellectually honest reading of the writings of the Founding Fathers will show that the intent of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with target shooting or duck hunting, but is about armed resistance to those who would threaten liberty. As written, the Second Amendment has no exceptions; the NFA is a bad law, and Miller a bad ruling, even if it’s technically correct that a short-barrelled shotgun is of limited value in a military context. If you want to start making exceptions, amend the Constitution; until then, yes, private American citizens should be able to possess modern military grade weaponry (yes, including machine guns, etc.) with no interference. So here comes Congress with H.R. 2324…what’s so difficult about it? As the bill is written, it would prohibit private transfers of firearms only at gun shows, which would be ineffective at best at stopping the flow of guns to criminals, as people could still sell privately in their homes. However, if they tried to pass a bill that would prohibit all private transfers of firearms (and this has been proposed before), it would result in de facto registration, which, as demonstrated in the past two decades in Australia, the United Kingdom, and with certain makes and… Read more »
@David Lauri – “Because there are already millions of guns in the United States, there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the ownership of firearms?”
I’m saying that there are so many guns, that no matter what you do, it doesn’t matter, because logistically it’s impossible to reduce the numbers. If a nut wants a gun, he or she can get one real easy, and always will be able to.
There’s places I can go today now and buy guns from some the back of some dude’s car…at a flea market, from a family member. Guns are ubiquitous in America.
Do all you want, it’s only for the sake of feeling good that “someone did something.” It’s not going to actually do anything.
Lots of legal buyers of firearms go out and kill people. How do you propose we stop people from going bat shit crazy and snapping? Nuero-biochemical registration?
Its all just a never ending attempt of mankind to control that which he cannot. Like I said, the genie is out of the bottle, and this conversation is merely falderal.
What about this part “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
Militia’s have training requirements, do they not?
The reality is, if you are going to own a gun- you should be able to hit your target. Training helps- a lot.
I’ll still bet that even without having gone shooting in almost ten years- I’ll shoot a tighter shot group than most of you cowboys thanks to a certain US Army Captain who was on the Army pistol team- and my A Team- who taught me how to do it right.
These aren’t “point and shoot” cameras- they are guns- and when you pull that trigger- things happen.
I still think we need training courses-
If I was really so worried about my freedoms- I’d be more concerned with serial numbers, ballistic tests and registries of sales. As to the ability to protect oneself- I say- a well trained shooter is much better off.
I don’t think we can truly know what the framers meant, nor what they would say if they were alive today (besides “holy crap, look at all the porn!”)
I also don’t think many minds are going to be changed in this discussion, though I must admit I learned a few things.
But I gotta stir the hornet’s nest one more time… :) The argument that private citizens need adequate weaponry so that they can prevent or overthrow a tyrannical government is just a little too over the top for me. If you and your buddies are stockpiling weapons, you’re more of a threat to me and the rest of the citizenry than the government is, and you need to be stopped. Period. And you’re absolutely kidding yourself if you think you can stockpile enough weapons to hold off the govenment (National Guard, Army, Navy, AF, Marines, Coast Guard, ATF, FBI, Local Police, Sheriff, etc etc etc). And if you want to do that, you’re scaring the hell out of me.
Our power as citizens in this country comes through voting, not weaponry.
@ Brian: you are dead on. If you really want to protect yourself against the government then you would want some nukes, not a few pea shooters.
David:
Since we’ve been talking about ‘what the framers thought’ in this thread, we should probably understand that this is a fairly modern requirement, musket-men in the Revolution were not expected to hit a target (think of curve balls in baseball, now imagine that the spin is in a random direction every time you shoot, that’s what musket balls do). The Minie ball really made aimed shots a possibility for the rank and file. Having said that, I agree with all this:
The basic idea that you and your neighbors are better off when you act responsibly is a hard one to deny.
Brian:
I think good old Chairman Mao said it best:
Drexel Dave:
Really? Guess someone needs to tell these guys that.
How about the National Guard’s guns? Remember Kent State! Vote for the Green Party May 4th. May 4, 2010 is the 40th. anniversary of the Kent State shooting during an anti-war Vietnam protest by students at Kent State University. This May 4th is also primary elections day in Ohio and the Green Party of Ohio is on the ballot for the first time. The Green Party is a peace/anti-war party. In the spring of 1970, the Nixon administration orchestrated the overthrow of the Cambodian government, setting up a military dictatorship and paving the way for a U.S. invasion. After 11 years of war in Vietnam the American people were growing weary of the cost, in lives and money. Growing numbers were coming to mistrust politicians who were claiming that the war was aimed at stopping Communism and achieving freedom for the Vietnamese people. Across the country student protest had increased both in numbers and militancy. Here in Ohio, student protest rocked the political establishment on April 15, 1970 when 300 students staged a sit-in at the Navy ROTC building at Miami University. That day there were widespread campus demonstrations called by the Student Mobilization to End the War and the Vietnam Moratorium. At Miami the Black Students Action Association who were demanding an increase in black enrollment, joined the anti-war/anti-draft protesters occupying the ROTC building. Over the next two weekends there were protests in communities and campuses throughout Ohio. From Ohio University to Bowling Green from Case Western to Wright State, students were standing up against the war. At Ohio State University 1500 Ohio National Guard were deployed during campus protests the last weekend in April. 650 students were arrested. At Kent State there was a sharp confrontations between police and student protestors. On Saturday night May 2nd, an unknown arsonist burnt the Army ROTC building to the ground. Governor Rhodes called out the Guard and on May 4 they fired into protests killing 4 and wounded 15. Across the U.S. campus and communities erupted into massive protest against the war, the draft and the shooting at Kent State. Hundreds… Read more »
The Green Party stands for coercion and force. You platforms are essentially eco-communistic and the biggest proponent of statism of any of the “major” political parties.
I thought I would bring the following site to attention: http://www.gunshowundercover.org It shows pretty clearly the loophole that exists in gun shows, and the problems with “private” sellers. Some of the videos were taken from Hara Arena.
Paul,
Do you think criminals who sell guns out of the backs of cars and trucks on street corners perform background checks? Do you think that criminals who steal guns during robberies think, “you know, maybe I shouldn’t take this gun as I wouldn’t pass a background check to purchase a gun.”
It is simply not true that the way to keep firearms out of the possession of criminals is to “close the gun show loophole.” You will then restrict supply even more making the “street dealers” even more money.
Want to figure out a way to create bigger and stronger gangs? Oh wait, we have already have figured out how to do that…just make drugs and guns illegal and force people to purchase them from gangs. It worked with alcohol too for a while…maybe we should make that illegal again…it would be nice to have another Al Capone.
Jesse, I don’t understand your logic. You think that closing the loophole to prevent people who are banned from owning guns from purchasing guns will increase gun ownership among people that are banned from owning guns? So because that might happen, we should make it easier for people that wouldn’t pass background checks to purchase guns? Because that is what the loophole does. It creates a market for criminals.
I’m not saying gunshows are bad. I’m saying making it easier and cheaper for people that are not allowed to have guns to purchase them is.
Want to figure out a way to create bigger and stronger gangs? Oh wait, we have already have figured out how to do that…just make drugs and guns illegal and force people to purchase them from gangs. It worked with alcohol too for a while…maybe we should make that illegal again…it would be nice to have another Al Capone.
You are correct about what you say about drugs and gangs, Jesse. Keeping recreational drugs illegal doesn’t stop drug use, doesn’t stop drug trafficking and is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
Dan Savage of Seattle’s independent weekly, The Stranger, does a good job of pointing out the one-sided drek that passes for journalism in the United States on the “war on drugs,” its ineffectiveness and its wastefulness.
Where you and I probably disagree on recreational drugs is that I think they should be legalized but also regulated and taxed, while I’d bet you would think they should be legalized but not regulated or taxed in any way (something about natural rights, I guess).
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. (David Lauri)
True story David. The first thing that was handed to the Old Bandito when he got to Vietnam was the standard equipment for pointmen; a sawed off shotgun. It was later replaced by an M-79 grenade launcher (basically the same thing with a much larger barrel) with canister rounds….
Thanks to El Bandito for giving us a “how to tell a true war story”,
just some of the things they carried.
My point is…if u r 2 dangerous to be allowed to own a gun then u r 2 dangerous 2 own a sword, or a bat, or a knife and u shouldn’t be in the general population. Either u r not dangerous and are rehabilitated or you should be locked up; but treating innocent citizens like criminals and making them prove they aren’t because u release wolves among us is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, I want guns cheap and easy to access. Just like all other products and services.
Today’s Doonesbury is fun:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2010/db100502.gif
Ok, David L. Alex Doonesbury insults three strangers for conduct not illegal, immoral nor unethical and somehow ends up taking the moral high ground? The strangers were armed, yet she felt no threat. The boyfriend feels so empowered he chooses to call them morons to their face, an action which would result in a third degree (unarmed) butt whuppin in every biker bar the Old Bandito has frequented, and they are numbered in the hundreds. What the Old Bandito sees isn’t the wisdom of youth but Ivy League elitism of an Old Flatulence cartoonist whose opinion might have been important 20 years ago.Maybe Alex Doonesbury and her sweetie need to get in touch the dynamic duo of Emily Post and Miss Manners. Or maybe Garry Trudeau, mired in downward influential mobility, should grab Jane and take an early retirement to Martha’s Vineyard, where they can hang around other Harvard alums and not be bothered with the working class flotsam they so openly dispise…..
And that, Mr. Bandit, is what makes the cartoon so fun, the reaction it stirs up in folk like you.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7257
You are all doomed.
There will be no saving of anyone with a gun.
Your final destination is grave, whether you are delivered there by old-age, disease, gunshot, or natural disaster.
There will be no saving of any of you.
Keep arguing as if there will be so I can have something to chuckle at each day.
Peace.
It appears as if we have at least a couple of people vehemently opposed to obvious reality.
“Johnny, show ’em what’s behind curtain No. 3!”
Drexel Dave:
Yes the end is nigh, though our destination might not change some of us would like to get there in a finer style…
The destination is the same, whether it be nigh or far.
And whether or not some would like to get there in a finer style is a moot point. That’s just better living, of which I wholeheartedly participate in.
Gizmodo has an interesting post today, “Are Cameras the New Guns?,” about a growing trend to make illegal the recording of any on duty police officer:
Those who’ve commented on Esrati.com about the importance of the Second Amendment as a protection against government tyranny might want to read the Gizmodo article and think about its implications. I’m not saying that the Gizmodo article says that the right to bear arms isn’t constitutionally protected — it’s not about that; instead I’m pointing out that the Gizmodo article is saying that the right to record officers of the law performing their duties in public might well be as important as the right to bear arms and, not being explicitly protected by the Constitution, might be more endangered.
We’re good here in Ohio:
Looks like the “right to bear cameras” is protected.