Firearms discussion in 3 parts: Straight talk

Dr. T. David Gordon's picture

Part I: Getting Firearms “Off the Streets”

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan rightly said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” He might just have rightly said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to be confusing.”

The discussion of any matter of public policy is not aided by using language in a confusing manner, and yet people rather routinely do this very thing. One of the most confusing statements one hears regarding firearms policy is this: “We need to get guns off the streets.”

I have heard this statement many times for many years, and I still have absolutely no idea what that means. One might as well say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.” There are (to my knowledge) no purple zebras, and there are no zebras of any color in the trees, so it simply would not make any sense to say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.”

Now, I have been driving an automobile for about four decades, and I have seen many things in the streets: I have seen children’s toys left in the street. I have seen children themselves playing in the street. On windy days I have seen trash cans rolling around in the street. I have seen dogs, cats, deer, rabbits, squirrels, and other animals in the streets.

But I have not once seen a firearm in the street. Firearms are not in our streets, and so it simply does not make sense to say we need to get them “off” the streets, since they are not on them in the first place.

So, when people say that we need to get firearms “off the streets,” what do they really mean? Well, they could mean a number of things — some of which I would agree with, some of which I would disagree with, and some of which I would be willing to consider.

I would agree with the expression if it meant this: “We need to do what we reasonably and constitutionally can to restrict the possession of firearms by those who will employ them violently.”

Yet, our current policies already address this; felons and those who have been adjudged mentally defective (and several other categories) are prohibited by law from possessing firearms, and I largely concur with such laws.

I would disagree with the expression if it meant: “We should prohibit absolutely all private ownership of firearms.”

Unfortunately, this is, in fact, what some people do mean by the expression; they simply have not the honesty and/or intellectual clarity to say so. Any policy that prohibited the private ownership of weapons absolutely would be unconstitutional and unwise.

As a third possibility, the expression could mean: “I would like to see the number of privately owned firearms in the United States reduced from 300 million to 250 million.” I would be willing to consider such a statement; and if a convincing case were made for it, I would be willing to agree to the policy.

But there can be little progress on the public-policy front if people insist on employing language that is non-sensical (language that simply does not make any sense if taken in a straightforward manner).

If people desire to eradicate entirely the right of citizens to own firearms, they should say so. If they wish (for whatever reasons) to reduce the total number of privately owned firearms, they should say so. And if they wish to try to prevent the private ownership of weapons by criminals or the mentally deranged, they should say that, too.

All three make sense; all three are clear; and all three could be discussed intelligently. Let’s start with honest language and then have an honest debate.

Part II: Firearms Buy-back Proposal

The debate over firearms includes a lot of confusing language and expressions. This is reflective of other forms of confusion in the debate, such as the common — but illogical — notion that reducing the number of firearms would have the effect of reducing their criminal use. Such an effect would not necessarily happen.

For the record, there are currently an estimated 250 to 300 million firearms in the country; nearly one for each of the 310 million people who live in the United States.

In 1978, I purchased a firearm, and it was the only firearm I owned for a number of years. I acquired some others, and at some point I probably owned 10 firearms. I committed no crime with one firearm, no crime with 10 firearms, and would not have committed a crime with 100 firearms.

On the other hand, if a violent or unstable individual had even a single firearm, he might likely commit a crime with it. So, the number of firearms privately owned in the United States does not, by itself, have anything to do with whether firearms are used to commit crime.

The moral character and psychological health of those who possess them has everything to do with whether they are inclined to commit crime.

Any policy designed to prevent evil or deranged people from possessing firearms is a well-intended policy — but any policy whose only effect would be to prevent harmless people from possessing them is unconstitutional, unproductive, and possibly even dangerous (since those individuals could no longer resist criminal acts with them).

I suspect that many people who are confused about increasing or decreasing the number of privately owned firearms are also confused about the language they use. They are probably the same people who talk about getting firearms “off the streets.”

While I believe it injures the discussion of public policy to be confusing, I do not object to cooperating in some ways with confused people, and so I would not object to the following proposal, as a concession to those who believe reducing the number of privately owned firearms would make us safer:

I would not object to a government-run, but privately funded, firearms buy-back program. If Mayor Bloomberg, Mrs. Brady, and others of their persuasion would sleep better at night if we reduced the total number of privately owned firearms in our nation, I would not object at all if they funded a government-run buy-back program.

If all the money they currently spend lobbying Congress were instead spent on a buy-back program, the number of privately owned weapons would be reduced, perhaps somewhat substantially. (Mayor Bloomberg could probably contribute $20-$30 million dollars to the project himself.)

As a taxpayer, I would not want a nickel of public monies to be expended on such a project, because I do not believe the number of privately owned weapons has anything at all to do with crime rates; but I would not object to other citizens, of their own volition, contributing voluntarily to such a program, nor would I object to the program enjoying the same tax advantages as charitable organizations enjoy.

If Mayor Bloomberg donated $20 million dollars to such a program, he should get the same tax deduction as he would if he gave the same amount to a church or to a synagogue.

Indeed, I am somewhat surprised that this proposal is not commonly discussed. On an issue where there appears to be little common ground, I believe substantial common ground could be found here. I doubt even the NRA would find the proposal objectionable; and I see no reason why Mayor Bloomberg (et al.) would object to such a project.

Wouldn’t those who say they believe that reducing the number of firearms would make us safer approve a program that would reduce the number? Indeed, wouldn’t such individuals prove the sincerity of their belief by contributing to it?

The only conceivable objection I could see to the proposal is that some people ordinarily prefer to achieve their ends with someone else’s money, but if the program were voluntary, I do not understand how or why they would object to it.

A voluntary, privately operated buy-back program is, it seems to me, a perfectly acceptable form of reducing the number of firearms.

Part III: “We Will Preserve Your 2nd Amendment Right to Hunt?”

One commonly recurring statement from gun-control forces, including in Congress and the White House, is the supposedly reassuring comment: “We will preserve your Second Amendment right to hunt.”

I will be generous here and assume that those who make such statements are prevaricating; it would be entirely too painful to believe that elected officials (or those who desire to become so) could be quite that ignorant.

The Second Amendment, after all, says nothing about hunting or about any other sporting uses for weapons. I would like to think that a junior high school student could easily write a paper on the matter and correctly conclude — on both textual and historical grounds — that the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting.

First, there is the textual issue: What does the amendment actually say? Does it say anything at all about hunting (or sporting uses for weapons)? Here is the text, in its entirety:

“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.”

Constitutional scholars remind us that the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”) is essential to the force of the amendment, and that the justification or preambulatory clause or clauses (“well regulated militia ... security of a free state”) need not be regarded as comprehensive.

That is, the non-infringed-upon firearms might be used for purposes in addition to the two that are expressly mentioned. Perhaps such firearms could be used for home or personal defense (the Supreme Court has said so in Heller), and perhaps they could also be used for hunting (no American court or legislature has ever criminalized hunting per se).

Having said this, the justification or preambulatory clause also cannot be dismissed; at a minimum, non-infringement of the right to keep and bear arms expressly addresses a militia and the security of free states. That is, the Second Amendment says nothing expressly about killing game animals, and everything expressly about killing humans.

On the basis of the text alone, it is entirely gratuitous to suggest that the Second Amendment says anything at all about hunting; and those who say they will preserve our “Second Amendment right to hunt” may as well say they will preserve our “Second Amendment right to throw Frisbees.”

Frisbee-throwing may or may not be helpful to our society, and it may or may not be a matter that needs to be addressed via legislation; but the Second Amendment does not address Frisbee-throwing, and it does not address hunting. It also says nothing about trapping game animals. “Traps” are not mentioned; “arms” are.

On two historical grounds, a clever junior high school student would also conclude that the Second Amendment does not address hunting. The one is fairly obvious: The various colonies had just completed a successful military campaign against their own former monarch, George III of Great Britain. The colonies sent militias to General Washington to employ as he saw fit in that military endeavor.

The framers of the Constitution may have had middle-aged memories, but surely they could not possibly have forgotten that just several years earlier the term “militia” was employed to describe those who killed British soldiers, not game animals (British or native). Game animals were no threat to “the security of a free state,” but humans wearing red coats were.

The Second Amendment (like it or not) protects the right of the several colonies (now states) to employ firearms to preserve their liberty and security against human tyranny or human aggression.

The clever junior high school student might also address a second, less obvious historical matter: We today, in our largely urban and agri-business setting, might be pardoned for assuming that hunting was a common way of providing nourishment in the 18th century, and that (therefore) the Second Amendment preserved the right to provide nourishment via hunting.

But the clever junior high school student would remind us that hunting was not the primary or ordinary manner of providing for nourishment at that time. The colonies were not hunter-gatherer, nomadic cultures (though many of the Native American cultures were); the colonies were agrarian cultures. They planted crops and raised livestock; some also trapped, and some hunted.

Raising livestock is far more predictable than trapping, and trapping is far more predictable than hunting (the trap does not need to be awake and in the woods at night, dusk, or dawn; it works around-the-clock).

While some colonialists may have augmented their diet with game, none would have depended entirely on it, and few would have done more than the occasional supplement. Fishing nets, cultivated vegetables and grains, traps, chicken yards, and fenced-in grazing land were the ordinary methods of providing sustenance during the colonial era.

When people therefore pledge to “preserve” our Second Amendment “right to hunt,” our proper response is that we do not need nor have any right to hunt according to the Second Amendment; the Second Amendment preserves the right to kill aggressive or tyrannous humans.

If people desire truthfully to relate the Second Amendment to hunting, they should pledge to “invent a Second Amendment right to hunt” rather than to preserve one.

[Dr. T. David Gordon is a professor of religion at Grove City (Penn.) College and a contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values (www.visionandvalues.org).] © 2013 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

pumpkin
pumpkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2009
O My God Where are you people from?

i pray someone is listening.

Husband and Fat...
Husband and Father of 2's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2012
Pumpkin: It's a discussion on the Constitution

You might want to read it one day.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Too hard and too old...

...Just give them the cliff notes thank you....

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Militia? Second Amendment

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

A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility. Some of the ways the term is used include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[3] often politicized.[citation needed]

Accepting this definition of militia, when the beloved Second Amendment was articulated by our Founding Fathers, we did not have the weapons that are used by our government military agencies. We have militias in our urban areas and suburban areas.
Are we preparing to go to war with one another? An internal war among Americans would be the end of our country. Where are we headed? Are we becoming our own enemies?

Is the right to bear arms being understood as every citizen (adult) is to be trained to use military weapons?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-What is a militia?

If you want to know what our forefathers considered a militia maybe we should look at their definitions rather than Websters.

Quote:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.... " --George Mason

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " --Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. " --Samuel Adams

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. " --John Adams

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

I think Websters, Wiki, and others have also added, IMO, to the confusion regarding the the meaning of this word - and how or what it describes in 2013. I don't have the answer - but I just cringe when I think of military weapons in the hands of criminals and/or the mentally ill. I also have been surprised at the conflict of what is identified as military weapons. Naturally weapons designed to give soldiers an advantage when being attacked by enemy soldiers in 2013 are different from muskets.
In other countries citizens have guns, but not the violence that we have in our country. Are these militias really a necessary protection against criminals and the mentally ill, or are we arming ourselves to fight those who disagree with an ideology?

Quote:

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. " --John Adams

In private self defense. Have the video games, media, etc. made it necessary for private citizens to feel they need military weapons for defense in their private home? Maybe so. My grandfather and his generation shared stories of sitting on the front porch with a rifle to protect the family from marauding teenagers and citizens in white sheets. Are we saying in 2013, our law enforcement/national guard cannot protect citizens and a private citizen needs military weapons? I don 't pretend to have the answer to my questions - but I just don't think this is the direction we need to be headed. What has prevented the violence in other countries where every citizen has a gun?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM
Quote:

In other countries citizens have guns, but not the violence that we have in our country. Are these militias really a necessary protection against criminals and the mentally ill, or are we arming ourselves to fight those who disagree with an ideology?

In this country we ignore/mistreat our mentally ill. I believe that better treatment for them is part but only part of the answer to this question. I don't fear a gun in the hands of a citizen that can pass a background check. So that is another part of the answer. But I don't believe that banning any type weapon from law abiding citizens is part of the answer. China bans all guns. Yet in one month a few years ago they confiscated 120,000 of them from criminals. Kind of explains that old saying "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Will the wrong people find a way to get banned guns? You bet!!! That is why we must allow good people to defend themselves.

Quote:

What has prevented the violence in other countries where every citizen has a gun?

Maybe you answered your own question. Check the crime stats of major cities that don't allow the citizens to have guns and compare them to the ones that do.

I don't own an assault weapon. But if you asked why I might need one my answer would be to have an equal chance against the criminal that might break into my home that has one.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude
Quote:

In this country we ignore/mistreat our mentally ill. I believe that better treatment for them is part but only part of the answer to this question. I don't fear a gun in the hands of a citizen that can pass a background check. So that is another part of the answer. But I don't believe that banning any type weapon from law abiding citizens is part of the answer. China bans all guns

If all citizens were trained to operate military weapons = as in Israel, would that correct our attitude towards the use of guns? I don't fear law-abiding citizens with a military weapon - but I have great fear of a large group of citizens who may disagree with my ideology, race, religion, sex having military weapons and a desire to eradicate me or mine. This is a sincere fear based on my readings of the hate groups (both majority and minority) that are on the internet for all to see. I see persons with this fear arming themselves against AMERICANS. This is what an enemy of our country and way of life would love to see - another Civil War based on ideologies/misunderstandings/etc. Our enemies would love to see our country erupt from within. Before we issue an OK for all to carry military style weapons, we better be honest of our feelings towards our fellow citizens. . .law abiding and criminals.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-A ban is not the answer
Quote:

If all citizens were trained to operate military weapons = as in Israel, would that correct our attitude towards the use of guns?

Training is a good idea but as to it changing attitudes, maybe in some cases. Not the majority I don't think. The people that you fear do know how to use those weapons and will have them ban or no ban. That is all the more reason for good people to be equally armed to defend themselves. I understand also that there are those that would love to see us in a civil war but to allow the wrong side to have a weapon that gives it such an advantage over the other is not an answer to that. The ban will only work on law abiding citizens. The big deterrent to a civil war will be that the other side can fight back.

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
G35 Dude

The current administration approves of killing American citizens without a trial or absolute proof that they pose a threat to the U.S. The hypocrites on the left that were decrying inhanced interrogation techniques from the previous administration (that were responsible for finding and killing bin Laden) say nothing of this.

As long as we have to fear an administration that will kill its own citizens without a trial and without warrant, then we need assault rifles to defend ourselves.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35
Quote:

The big deterrent to a civil war will be that the other side can fight back.

Sad but true. A very sobering thought. The hate groups and those who fear those that are different are arming themselves. I hope those who work in all of our communities are vigilant and the law abiding citizens prevail.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Law Abiding Citizens will prevail...

...only if the Government does not interfere with our ability to defend our homes, family and our Freedoms.

These groups are arming themselves.. shall we just depend on Government to protect us..?

They can't protect us in our own homes so how can they do so against the New Black Panthers and Stormfront?

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Hate Groups
Davids mom wrote:

The hate groups and those who fear those that are different are arming themselves.

Specifically, which "hate groups" are arming themselves? Please, be specific and provide proof of what you say.

According to the crime statistics, most of the hate groups reside in Obama's 'community organizing' stomping grounds of Chicago.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Just re-read these articles

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/supreme-court-strikes-down-chicago-h...

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168853287/how-do-gun-bans-affect-violent-c...

Statistics proved that the gun ban in Chicago did not stop crime. Here we have the protection of the Supreme Court, that guns cannot be banned by local authorities. We have the proof that banning buns did not solve Chicago's problem. We as citizens, wanting a safer country from within - should be very concerned and proactive at finding a solution that I feel goes beyond 'GUNS'. What do you think?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35
Quote:

Maybe you answered your own question. Check the crime stats of major cities that don't allow the citizens to have guns and compare them to the ones that do.

???? I 'm not aware of any cities in our country that don't allow citizens to have guns. Please clarify for me. I'm following the cities in the US that have had 'buy back' programs to see if that had / will have any effect on crime stats. I've been to other countries. One cannot deny there is a different psyche towards guns and criminal action in most other countries than in the US. Our history and our present is rife with sick glorification of the gun slinger and the criminal. We are known the world over for our gun slingers in western movies - and the gangland style executions from the prohibition period. Our media has portrayed LA, Chicago, Detroit as only inhabited by marauding gangs. Quite frankly, I witnessed gang activity in Paris that was more frightening than in LA. (Maybe because I understood the language in LA). I just feel that people are skirting the issue when they confine the argument to 'guns'. I don't hear a serious threat - confiscating all guns from private citizens. I fear a move towards training all citizens (adults) to use military weapons - without addressing the other issue of mental health and criminality.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM- OK I'll be more specific
Quote:

???? I 'm not aware of any cities in our country that don't allow citizens to have guns. Please clarify for me.

How about I re-word that to cities that won't issue weapons permits thereby allowing citizens to legally carry a firearm outside the home? You know places like Chicago? Or even places like New York where technically a person could get a permit but it's so hard to that it's not practical. Somehow I think you really knew what I meant. Yet you call the author of this article an idiot because he made fun of the term "guns on the street" like he didn't understand because it wasn't specific enough for him.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude

Good Lord - I'm not making fun of anyone who is taking this problem in our country seriously.

Are you saying that underground trafficking of guns is - because it is too difficult to get a gun legally? I had never thought of that angle - but I do know that most guns on the street in urban areas in the hands of criminals are procured illegally. What do you suggest? (not a rhetorical question)

I called this renown doctor an idiot for using grammar/irony/idioms as a way to try to find a solution to a problem that is killing citizens of our country. His PH.D is in religion, according to the bio. I don't know of any learned theologian who thinks that this is a 'laughing matter' or would use their knowledge towards solving a problem by using 'semantics' in the argument. I thought you were serious - and had some cogent ideas regarding the subject. I hope I'm right. If people are sincere in the conversation - and not afraid to be politically incorrect in the eyes of their neighbors, somehow, someway - a solution may be possible. There is straight talk on other blogs - and I hoped that I had found some here with you. You seemed to have given this some thought beyond the politics of the right or the left.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-If I had the power this would be my plan
Quote:

What do you suggest? (not a rhetorical question)

We must address the mentally ill. In my mind this should have been the first thing we did. We must try to keep guns from criminals by making sure that everyone that has a gun passed a background check. I think all sales, even private sales, should go through an FFL dealer. I've been challenged on this one by SL as he says that the only way this would work is for all guns to be registered. And I'm not in favor of that. So I guess enforcement would come when a criminal is caught by forcing him to state how he came by his weapon. If a pattern developed police could investigate that source and only prosecute if an undercover officer were to buy a weapon from this source illegally or some other proof could be obtained. Something more than the word of the criminal. I'm not in favor of banning any type weapon as that would put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. And finally by recognizing that no matter how hard we try criminals will still find a way to get weapons we must allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

pumpkin
pumpkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2009
Dude How Exactly Would You Describe Mentally Ill?

how many people are using mind altering drugs. how many use these drugs and drink. how many adults, not to even mention children, do you personally know who are not using some type depression, anxiety or neurosis medication. and whats so sad doctors are writing prescriptions for them. or do you consider psychosis the only true mental illiness? with the background checks, what will that encompass, only those who have actually been instituted.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
pumpkin-Trade off

I am not a mental illness professional. And I know where you're going with this. I'm referring to the category that NAMI calls a serious mental illness.

Quote:

Serious mental illnesses include major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder.

If you're going to complain that taking away the rights to own a gun because of an illness is unfair, I'd counter that it is a fair trade for improved care and better safety for the person and the masses. No answer is perfect.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Pumpkin

You bring up an excellent point. I would imagine that the requirements of alcohol content and 'under the influence' of a mind altering drug may be used as guidelines for determining a 'safe' state of mind. Also, if a person has an excessive record of DUI arrests. (I already see problems with this suggestion). Educators observe children who have mental/behavioral problems at an early age. Because of the stigma of receiving psychological help, many/most parents in the past refused this type of assistance for their child. There is talk of improving our offerings for mental health issues, but I haven't seen any specifics.

pumpkin
pumpkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2009
Thank You And That Was Part Of My Point

i see no issues with a complete background check, a waiting period, and any efforts to determine the definition of mentally ill for the purchase of a firearm. the mentally ill have been forgotten especially for adults.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Wish you had the power! If there is the background check of legally purchased guns, wouldn't the gun also be registered? I' not familiar with this process. I agree that law abiding citizens in our country must be able to protect themselves . If your plan is implemented and there is some improvement , we may be on the right track. The police work would be very important. Hopefully the background checks would provide necessary info Still work to do in helping the mentally ill IMO

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-Background check is for the person
Quote:

If there is the background check of legally purchased guns, wouldn't the gun also be registered?

No. At this time the background check is on the person only. If you have a CCW, which I do, you have passed the background check and can purchase a gun at will. No waiting period. Even if you don't and want to purchase a gun the 3 day waiting period is to check the person only. The gun is not involved.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Thanks for the clarification.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM..

I asked if you believe in the incorporation doctrine of the Constitution?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Depends...

..if you believe in the incorporation doctrine of the Constitution.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM don't ever say that you ask and answer questions...

...I asked you do you believe in the Incorporation Doctrine.

You asked this question:

Dm wrote:

Is the right to bear arms being understood as every citizen (adult) is to be trained to use military weapons?

It depends on the Incorporation doctrine...which means that the States are bound by the First 10 Amendments called the Bill of Rights. If that is the case the State of Georgia or the Federal Government owes me a Gun of like quality and class as the State Regulated Militia. In other words where is my M16? This give primacy over the Bill of Rights to the States and the Federal Government has no Authority over the States

The Bill of Rights is a binder on Government.. It tells them what they can't interfere with.. So without the Incorporation Doctrine it falls back to the "Original" intent of the Bill of Rights and the 18 Enumerated Powers of Government to act on our behalf and all other powers reside with the States per the 10th Amendment.

You see DM the Federal Government creates a conundrum when they try to apply the Good and Plenty clause and the Commerce Clause outside of the purview of the Constitution.

Supreme Courts have ruled down through the ages until around 1962 that the State has primacy not the Federal Government...thus the Federal Government CANNOT determine how the 2nd is to be applied. This is a power of the STATES not the FEDERAL. Since then the Federal Government argued they have primacy because the Constitution is incorporated...BUT...then that means since the Supreme Court has ruled that "militias" mean Citizens and the 2nd IN IT'S ENTIRETY applies to average non-military personnel read that as Citizens.. then the Government OWES me a M16 and yes to answer your question Military training.

Now to answer you question more directly since Military service is not compelled it and is voluntary.. unless by draft, then military training under the Incorporation Doctrine must be made available although it is voluntary.

Do you see DM what happens when Government plays around with "interpretations" of the Constitution and seize powers not granted to them by the Constitution?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
A little humor - while the lights are out!

Just sharing:

Love Old Women

AN OLD WOMAN PROSPECTOR SHUFFLED INTO TOWN LEADING A TIRED OLD MULE. THE OLD WOMAN HEADED STRAIGHT FOR THE ONLY SALOON TO CLEAR HER PARCHED THROAT.

SHE WALKED UP AND TIED HER OLD MULE TO THE HITCH RAIL. AS SHE STOOD THERE, BRUSHING SOME OF THE DUST FROM HER FACE AND CLOTHES, A YOUNG GUNSLINGER STEPPED OUT OF THE SALOON WITH A GUN IN ONE HAND AND A BOTTLE OF WHISKEY IN THE OTHER.

The young gunslinger looked at the old woman and laughed, saying, "Hey Old WOMAN, have you ever danced?"

THE OLD WOMAN LOOKED UP AT THE GUNSLINGER AND SAID, "NO, I NEVER DID DANCE... NEVER REALLY WANTED TO."

A CROWD HAD GATHERED AS THE GUNSLINGER GRINNED AND SAID, "WELL, YOU OLD BAG, YOU'RE GONNA DANCE NOW," AND STARTED SHOOTING AT THE OLD WOMAN'S FEET.

THE OLD WOMAN PROSPECTOR - NOT WANTING TO GET HER TOE BLOWN OFF -STARTED HOPPING AROUND. EVERYBODY WAS LAUGHING.

WHEN HIS LAST BULLET HAD BEEN FIRED, THE YOUNG GUNSLINGER, STILL
LAUGHING, HOLSTERED HIS GUN AND TURNED AROUND TO GO BACK INTO THE SALOON.

THE OLD WOMAN TURNED TO HER PACK MULE, PULLED OUT A DOUBLE-BARRELED SHOTGUN, AND COCKED BOTH HAMMERS.

THE LOUD CLICKS CARRIED CLEARLY THROUGH THE DESERT AIR. THE CROWD STOPPED LAUGHING IMMEDIATELY.

THE YOUNG GUNSLINGER HEARD THE SOUNDS TOO, AND HE TURNED AROUND VERY SLOWLY. THE SILENCE WAS ALMOST DEAFENING.

THE CROWD WATCHED AS THE YOUNG GUNMAN STARED AT THE OLD WOMAN AND THE LARGE GAPING HOLES OF THOSE TWIN BARRELS.

THE BARRELS OF THE SHOTGUN NEVER WAVERED IN THE OLD WOMAN'S HANDS, AS SHE QUIETLY SAID, "SON, HAVE YOU EVER LICKED A MULE'S BUTT?

THE GUNSLINGER SWALLOWED HARD AND SAID, "NO MAAM... BUT... I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO."

THERE ARE A FEW LESSONS FOR US ALL HERE:

1 - Never be
arrogant.
2 - Don't waste
ammunition.
3 - Whiskey
makes you
think you're
smarter than
you are.
4 - Always,
always make
sure you
know who
has the
power.
5 - Don't mess
with old
women; they
didn't get old
by being
stupid...

I JUST LOVE A STORY WITH A HAPPY ENDING, DON'T YOU?

conditon55
conditon55's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2010
NRA favorite quote

We are against curtailing the rights for responsible law abiding citizen to own guns.

In the USA we have innocent until proven guilty.

Are they talking about the Newtown Killer? Who was law abiding until he went in and gunned down the 20+ school kids ? He still hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law.

Same for the Aurora guy.

THe Viginia Tech guy ?

How about the guy who killed the school bus driver and and stole the kid and who is wholed up in a bunker in Alabama ? Are they for protecting all their rights ?

What about the 5 year kid in the bunker with the guy in Alabama ? And concern for his rights ?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Actually...

All of your examples.. BROKE existing laws so.... they were not by any definition Law-Abiding now were they?

How about those that drive cars illegally speeding, drunk etc.. want to ban those.. More people are killed on our hwys then guns so.....

conditon55
conditon55's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2010
NRA favorite quote

We are against curtailing the rights for responsible law abiding citizen to own guns.

In the USA we have innocent until proven guilty.

Are they talking about the Newtown Killer? Who was law abiding until he went in and gunned down the 20+ school kids ? He still hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law.

Same for the Aurora guy.

THe Viginia Tech guy ?

How about the guy who killed the school bus driver and and stole the kid and who is wholed up in a bunker in Alabama ? Are they for protecting all their rights ?

What about the 5 year kid in the bunker with the guy in Alabama ? And concern for his rights ?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
The idiot

Tried to explain; but failed because he fortunately has not been confronted with 'guns in the street'

Quote:

I have heard this statement many times for many years, and I still have absolutely no idea what that means. One might as well say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.” There are (to my knowledge) no purple zebras, and there are no zebras of any color in the trees, so it simply would not make any sense to say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees

I think your following statements show you do know what it means

Quote:

But I have not once seen a firearm in the street. Firearms are not in our streets, and so it simply does not make sense to say we need to get them “off” the streets, since they are not on them in the first place.

Ahh - the proof of idiocy. Thanks for the essay.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
It called an ironic point DM look it up....

...for a "Teacher" sometimes you are rather dense either that are you are purposefully being obtuse using ad hominem attacks to try to belittle the writter and keep people from listening to his actual arguments..

His argument is words have meaning (you should know this already) thus his reference to the analogy of Purple Zebras... "Guns in the Streets" was his way of metaphorically giving an example of how lax we are using the English language to describe how we are euphemistically describing what is actually the issue..

Guns don't use Criminals..Criminals use guns. No amount of pantie twisting in DC is going to change that.... "Getting guns off the Street" is just a "morpheus" way of looking at a problem offering no solutions but giving the sheep something to munch on and make them happy...

Keep munching DM and Jeff it is after all one of the things Progressives do best.

This is another phase for you two that comes to mind...

It is better to be silent and be thought a fool.... then to speak and remove all doubt... Thanks to you two we have no doubts.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Criminals, mental health.

Criminals, mental health. Most people agree that looking at these two issues will help in keeping Americans from becoming victims of gun violence. Not dealing with these issues and yelling out Second Amendment rights is political posturing at it's worse. No one is confiscating guns in this country. No homeowner needs a weapon designed to kill a military squad in a few seconds in his/her home. IMO. The112th Congress under the control of the 'do nothing's of this country will go down as the most destructive example of 'leadership' that the US has had in a long time. Almost all Americans agree it is important to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who need help with a mental disease. I was a Democrat before Jeff Carter was born. I resented then and resent now persons who must belittle another's opinion in order to express their own. In discussion on this blog, it is easy to fall into that style of communicating. Living with'guns in the street' is why I carried for years in LA. The guns were not in the hands of law abiding hunters or collectors, but in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I hope that laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill are enforced when enacted. I hope that weapons capable of killing 20+ humans within 30 + seconds are issued for military purposes only. The English language has many 'idioms'. Purple zebras/guns in the streets - idiocy when referring to a very serious problem in our country. I congratulate those who are serious about finding a solution to an obvious problem.

Definition of idiom:
an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.

Definition of ironic: containing or exemplifying irony

Definition of irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of the literal meaning

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm here is some good comedic delivery for you..
Davids mom wrote:

I resented then and resent now persons who must belittle another's opinion in order to express their own.

DM wrote:

The idiot

DM wrote:

Ahh - the proof of idiocy. Thanks for the essay.

The fact that you can say what you said and then come back and say you resent people belittling another's opinion all the while calling the person offering an opinion an Idiot and can do it all on the same posting only proves that you are indeed madame the Queen of Hypocrisy.

The fact that you can write BOTH of these sentences and not realize that you are in fact doing the very same thing you say you resent is amazing.

My God DM at least be consistent.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

I also said;

Quote:

In discussion on this blog, it is easy to fall into that style of communicating

Unlike some, I admit that I too show a tendency to reacting ignorantly to some comments.. Most read an entire sharing - instead of picking and choosing to emphasize their own perfection. I can't argue with your self perception- you are 100% correct! SL, believe it or not, most don't care what either of us 'think'.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Oh I read your whole missive...

...and found it to be, let's say, interesting at least. Wrong..but...interesting.

Oh and btw-

DM wrote:

I hope that weapons capable of killing 20+ humans within 30 + seconds are issued for military purposes only.

That's any gun in capable hands so..... even those non-scary 7 round only carrying guns.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-Our "leaders" could care less about mental health
Quote:

Criminals, mental health. Most people agree that looking at these two issues will help in keeping Americans from becoming victims of gun violence. Not dealing with these issues and yelling out Second Amendment rights is political posturing at it's worse.

I totally agree. So how come our current leaders didn't do something about mental illness in this new gun ban attempt?

Quote:

I hope that weapons capable of killing 20+ humans within 30 + seconds are issued for military purposes only.

Funny isn't it that in Switzerland 75 - 80% of all homes have these types of weapons in them and that is the country with the lowest crime rate? Even beyond that these guns account for less than 3.5% of all gun crimes yet this is what this administration wants to attack?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Another thought G35
Quote:

I totally agree. So how come our current leaders didn't do something about mental illness in this new gun ban attempt?

While listening to the Senate hearing, I heard reps from both 'sides' of the issue indicate 'mental illness' as an area to look at. It is true that it is easier to get a gun than to get treatment for mental illness for a loved one.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-Politicians
Quote:

While listening to the Senate hearing, I heard reps from both 'sides' of the issue indicate 'mental illness' as an area to look at. It is true that it is easier to get a gun than to get treatment for mental illness for a loved one.

Rhetoric is not action.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Agreed. I think this is the main reason for so little respect for the 112-113th Congress and our political parties. One party feels secure and empowered; the other party is changing 'rhetoric' looking forward to the next election - and not the welfare of the American people - IMO

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

The inoperative word here IMO is 'leader'. I wish that someone had an answer to your question that would lead us to a reduction of gun violence in our country. I do feel however that in many areas, comparing our country to Switzerland is 'almost' like comparing apples to oranges . We have some unique issues regarding the responsibility that goes along with gun ownership and 'power'. (That is a whole 'nuther' discussion.)

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM

I agree that there are differences between the US and Switzerland but all I'm saying is that the problem is not the weapon. Or Switzerland would have more problems than we do.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Agreed.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
This guy is an idiot

I'm sorry. I hate to even comment but this guy is an idiot.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Yes Jeff and DM a Doctor is an IDIOT..

Wow... using well reasoned arguments from a Educated well spoken DOCTOR means he is an idiot.

Why? Because he threatens your EMOTIONAL unreasonable non-argument of why Gun control will work,although it never has anywhere, except in Germany and it didn't work out to well for the people or the Jewish Community.

So his reasoned response to the Gun Control lobby means he is an idiot..?

OK, well we know Opinions are like Buttholes... everyone has'em and like your two responses they are usually full of crap.

Instead of calling him a idiot Jeff and your acolyte DM why don't you argue his points tell us why he is an idiot...or have you become more sniffle like and just attack the writer simply because you disagree?

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
SL, it's deja vu all over again.....

I guess acolyte is one possible description. I would offer up sycophant myself. DM did the same thing a few years back about a Thomas Sowell blog. Our also intellectually superior old friend Main Stream reacted hysterically to Sowell by calling him an idiot. DM quoted Main Stream's statement "Sowell is an idiot" and proudly exclaimed "Yup". No further explanation offered, just enthusiastically grabbed hold of a fellow liberal's coattails. Now she is chapping her lips on JeffC's butt.....

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I know MOC...

... I find it the height of hypocrisy for DM to call Dr. T. David Gordon an idiot for expressing his opinion all the while decrying anyone that doesn't agree with her as either a boob or a racist. Then she actually has the stones to come back and say..

DM wrote:

I resented then and resent now persons who must belittle another's opinion in order to express their own.

What astounds me is that she doesn't even realize that she does this ALL THE TIME. I guess being a Progressive means you don't have to make sense or have standards just so long as the "intention" is well placed.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
SL

You know what they all say....."You hate most in others what you see in yourself".

And, you know what DM says....."I was a Democrat before Jeff Carter was born".

LOL, which she says a lot too.....

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
You know MOC I was asked why I even engaged her...

.. in (sic) debates by a couple of posters the other day.. I guess the only explanation I have is I can't stand her ideology, I can't stand her Big Government solutions, I can't stand the Progressive Policies and the Socialism they try to emulate.

I have fought against her Progressive form of American Socialism for years that Social Democracy she thinks that we can do better then any other Country which have tried it only to fail time and time again...

I guess the fact that she either doesn't even recognize it for what it is or she knows very well what it is and endorses it is why I feel compelled to "debate" her ideology.

With this last election America has become a Social Democracy. We have lost the Republic. The next step of course is Socialism which Cass Sunstien wrote in his book 'Nudge'. He perfectly outlined the path using first the Cloward and Piven Strategy to over load the system, create crises and then use the overwhelming power of Government to "Nudge" us on the "Shining Path" of a Social Democracy. Once we have accepted the Government controls then we can be "shoved" into Socialism... His words not mine.

BTW- Who is Cass Sunstien?

Salon.com wrote:

"Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists."

Yes this is from Salon.com NOT a Rightwing Nut site.

This is who we have in Government... Nudging us along and the Sheeple that voted this last election just goes right along... Doesn't matter the cliff is right there in front of them.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Might you believe, SL...

...that DM's views, given her age, gender, and race, have been shaped over the years by the tumultuous social changes that have - particularly - affected her demographic(s) for the better? Civil rights and gender equality alone have seen great advances in equality during her developing and adult years. I believe this is the driving force for most of her posts/comments and, and many older folks are, she is stuck in her ways and doesn't want to change...even when confronted with facts and/or the obvious.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Absolutely KC...

I do believe her life experiences has molded her views.. doesn't make them right for the rest of us however. I completely understand we are all molded by our life experiences, however, that being said we can change.

I grew up a hardcore liberal. My Father was on the Governor's Staff of George Wallace and Lurleen Wallace. I grew up under the old time Democrat Society. I prowled the Halls of the Governors Mansion as a Child.. I also ran one of the campaigns for Don Siegelman a prominent Democrat from Alabama until he went to Prison that is... I used to get Christmas cards from him and his family for years.

I was totally immersed in Democrat/Liberal politics. So I know a bit about the Southern Democrats and who they were. BTW-they never switched to Republicans so the old time Racist Democrats stayed Racist Democrats..but that's for another time.

What happened.. I grew up. I changed. We can all change our views. Yes DM due to her age and life experiences have made up her core beliefs doesn't mean she has to takes those same beliefs to the grave however.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Agreed, SL...

...but I just don't see that happening; the blinders are on too tightly.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
KC more then likely all too true....

DM has the excuse of age, demographics and life experiences most of us did not have. For that she get's a pass 99% of the time.
Don't get me wrong I will still engage her but I realize I will never make her understand what she stands for is wrong for America.

Much like Gort, Lion, Jeff and a few others either they have never studied the effects of Socialism and why it is not right for us...OR... they know exactly what they are endorsing and want it. Either way those like me will always stand up and say no.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
What the little old black lady stands for:

1. Equal opportunity for all American citizens regardless of race, sex, religion, or political affiliation
2. Equal access for all American citizens to education; jobs;
3. Equal access to voting rights in every state of the United States
4. History of the United States taught honestly, including the contributions of all Americans, regardless of their race, ethnicity, sex.
5. An honest representation by our leadership when elected to halls of government.
6. A 'take-back' of our government from corrupt corporate leaders and elected officials by the legal electorate.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong I will still engage her but I realize I will never make her understand what she stands for is wrong for America.

Please elighten me, and explain to me what about the above (that I stand for) is wrong for America

I know that there are those who are not from my demographic or who have not had my experiences who have enjoyed an uncontested feeling of superiority and power in this country. I really thought with the integration of our communities, armed forces, business world, etc., that these supposed feelings of entitlement by sex and color had been on the road to correction.

Quote:

Either way those like me will always stand up and say no.

You, Talmadge, Wallace, Thurmund, and others tried. I'm looking forward to your answer.

Before you start - and put words in my mouth and others of my demographic- because I want to provide 'care' for others in the richest country in the world; because I support well-run medicare, medicaid, health care, etc. - I AM NOT A SOCIALIST. Many citizens in this country had/have relatives who survived socialism, communism, dictatorships, etc. If our country ever is victim to these 'isma and 'ships, it will be because we as free American citizens do not listen to and respect one another - and refuse to work diligently together to protect our republic and our democratic way of life.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM...

Give me a few days and I will put together IN YOUR OWN WORDS opinions that you have expressed besides the vanilla ones you espoused above...

Oh and btw--nice shot lumping me in well known racist... shall I now compare you to Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and Malik Zulu Shabazz?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
*

*

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
A few days?

Whatever you need. Life goes on.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
DM Your Vision
Davids mom wrote:

Equal access for all American citizens to education; jobs;

Egad we agree on something tonight. It should be citizens and not illegals!!!!!!!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
cyclist

It was the LEGALS WHO elected Obama - and not illegal citizens who some use only for cheap labor in this country. They are a large part of our electorate - and not because of an illegal status, but because their forefathers were part of our 'country' before many areas became 'states', and their legal status implemented generations ago. But I'm glad we agree on 'something'. At least there might be a modicum of 'listening' going on here. GREAT SUPER BOWL HALF SHOW!! GO BYONCE!!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
DM, Byonce can really...

sing. Oh, and she can shake that....... :-)

I got to be careful. The boss might be on to me.

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Disappointed

I was disappointed by the lack of diversity in the half-time show.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Diversity?

I must have missed something. They all looked like Americans to me! Especially poignant was the children's choir from Newtown accompanying Ms.Jennifer Hudson. She also lost family to gun violence. What a tremendous show of American unity from the football field, the commercials, the half time show and the stands. The world was watching - especially our American troops overseas - who represent the diversity of our country.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

LOL!! IMO - the best commercial - AND GOD MADE A FARMER!!

TOUCHDOWN!! I bet the coaches parents are happy!!!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
That's just it CY...

She makes no distinction between the two...

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
SL,

I'm shocked!!!!

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Online
Joined: 10/17/2010
Best Commercial Paul Harvey

The farmer by Dodge trucks. I miss that voice, that simple eloquence....go SF!!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
109 YARD TOUCHDOWN

OH BE QUIET SL!!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Oh you wish...

...never not ever shall I be silent until my dying breath does take me from this mortal realm.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

And Charlton Heston?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm

...and Malcolm X??????

WTH are you talking about?

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Steve

It's a typical tactic of the left. You made a statement regarding freedom of speech that had absolutely nothing to do with Charlton Heston's famous "cold, dead hands" statement. The local race-monger tried unsuccessfully to correlate the two and when you didn't bite, she tried to make it sound like you were the one that is clueless. She then attempted (unsuccessfully) to cover up her own stupidity by trying to make you look like you didn't know what you were talking about and then refuse to debate the issue further. It's a typical left-wing, Alinsky tactic that just fell flat.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
LOL

I hear that you are out of high school and possibly college. You don't see the relation of your 'you wish' contribution and Charlton Heston? Oh well, you are not going to participate in a discussion or answer my question. Have fun - my vanilla answer stands. I'm through with participating with you. It was revealing. Thanks.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Skeezer sez...
Skeezer wrote:

Skeezer says: Oh well, you are not going to participate in a discussion or answer my question. Have fun - my vanilla answer stands. I'm through with participating with you.

That's what losers do when they have lost the argument. Claim victory then quit.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Yeah you have said that before DM...

...but like a Potato chip just can't help yourself from trying to take a bite can you?

Sorry your inference fell a little short of the remark...

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
MOC & deja vu

Ah yes, perhaps Main Scream Julie is limiting herself to her group of non-believers or some suchthing--and to think, she almost got to the church on time once to sit down with Mike King and I for a brewski!

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
AHG

Consider yourself fortunate. You might have found yourself baying at the moon one night with her and the other non-believers.....

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
MOC & "Baying"

Nah, don't think a session with her would have affected us at all. I'm just a hard target and Mike has long suffered from occasional frothings, normally precipitated by something Mayor Haddix says or does. A permanent cure for his affliction will be available in November!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Speaking of idiots

NYT Watch: Jimmy Carter editorializes on assault weapons

Former President Carter did not have his facts straight in today’s editorial just as he didn’t possess competent leadership during his presidency. The assault weapons ban is simply an attack on the 2nd Amendment in an effort to slowly chop it away. It is only when we realize this that we learn from the plight of gun owners in Canada and the United Kingdom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
JeffC
Quote:

I'm sorry. I hate to even comment but this guy is an idiot.

Just for grins and giggles, can you elaborate?

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Jeff

Calling this guy an idiot for expressing an opinion on a subject your dad wouldn't dare broach is indeed a stretch.
But opinions are like a......s, we all have them.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - You

can say whatever you like here, it's a free country. Reference the Bill of Rights, which clearly are not "granted" rights by our government.

Recent Comments