moonbattery.gif


« What Sanity Is Up Against | Main | Maine Lays Out Welcome Mat for Illegals »


February 14, 2008

I Never Would Have Guessed

Oddly, Northern Illinois University, where an armed maniac wreaked havoc today amid defenseless students and faculty, is another gun-free zone.

The killer shot 22 people, killing 6, if you include himself. He must not have noticed the "gun-free zone" signs.

Police arrived in minutes, but that was much too late. As the Founding Fathers understood, the only safe populace is an armed populace.

gun_free_zone.jpg

Posted by Van Helsing at February 14, 2008 9:13 PM

Comments

When seconds count the police are only minutes away!!!! Why do "concerned" citizens allow gun free zones to continue to exist? these are magnets for the deranged!!!

Posted by: Skip at February 15, 2008 6:25 AM

Too bad just one of those victims didnt have a gun so they could blow that nuts head clean off.

With all the press coverage, they are now planting the seeds for the next tragedy. Black trenchcoated nuts all over the country are probably planning their own attention grabbing suicide stunt. I guess they could arrest or search everyone wearing a black trenchcoat - but that would be profiling.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2008 7:27 AM

Or, you know, we could just give everyone those 18th century muskets. Then he'd have to stand there, load the gunpowder, add the metal ball, and then ask everyone to stand still while he fires.

Posted by: alchemist at February 15, 2008 8:27 AM

You guys are hilarious. Do you have your house encircled with bear traps just in case a bear decides to break into your house?

Do you live underground just because a meteor might hit you?

You know, more people die every year from peanut allergies than from suicidal shooters. I'll be waiting to hear your genius plan on how to protect our citizens from that.

Posted by: MattM at February 15, 2008 9:01 AM

Alchemist, do you have a fire extinguisher at your house? Just curious.

Posted by: Nicki Fellenzer at February 15, 2008 9:09 AM

That last should have been directed at MattM. Sorry.

Posted by: Nicki Fellenzer at February 15, 2008 9:10 AM

Y'know, the call for an armed student body is seductive when campus shooting events happen, but isn't anyone the least bit concerned with a proliferation of guns on campus?

Does anyone really think that when you have a bunch of 19-year-olds with their first taste of freedom from their parents and freely available drugs and alcohol, you should give them guns?

Posted by: Ralph Kramden at February 15, 2008 9:28 AM

What the founding fathers understood was that it took a long time to reload a muzzle loader. A strict constructionist would argue for muzzle loaders but against repeaters, eh?

Posted by: bob-0 at February 15, 2008 10:08 AM

An campus full of armed drunk teenagers isnt wise. But a large number of trained, permitted and responsible students and faculty should have guns if they want them. And anyone abusing the system (drunkeness, law breaking) should be dealth with harshly - taking away their gun would be first on the list.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2008 10:11 AM

Utah has no prohibition on campus guns, and they haven't had any problems at all. No carnage. No massacres. No drunken incidents. Nothing on their campuses. The assumption that everyone would carry if they could is wrong. Generally 3-4 percent of college students are gun owners. That's a negligible number, and that is their choice. However, just one armed student may have been able to prevent it. Maybe not... but at least he or she would have had a chance at stopping this guy.

Armed students stopped the shooter at the Appalachian School of law, remember?

Posted by: Nicki Fellenzer at February 15, 2008 10:32 AM

Armed, off-duty, police and sheriff officers stopped the shooter at the Appalachian School of law.

Posted by: SpotWeld at February 15, 2008 10:55 AM

Yes, I am sure things would have gone much better if students had been carrying weapons. Let's see: instead of this maniac shooting now we have ten people shooting inside a closed classroom with 200 students...

Posted by: Perico at February 15, 2008 10:56 AM

bob-o,
The muzzleloaders in use at the time of the founding of the country were the height of firearms technology in that period.
Rights aren't dependent on technology. If they were we wouldn't have any right to communicate by anything other than the spoken word or letters written on handmade paper with quill pens and delivered on horseback.
A strict constructionist (like me) would argue that we have the right to use the technology of our times.

Posted by: steve at February 15, 2008 11:01 AM

"Perico at February 15, 2008 10:56 AM"

Oh yes, because EVERYBODY KNOWS that murderers take carefull aim at those they hate, while honest people just blast away at anything and anyone.
What you self-defence haters don't seem to realise is that in EVERY CASE, these cowards have attacked helpless, UNARMED people, but KILLED THEMSELVES when people who can SHOOT BACK (ie: the police) arrive on the scene. If just ONE shot had been fired at any of these cowards by an intended victim, there is a 99% chance that they would have either run away or killed themselves then and there.

Posted by: KHarn at February 15, 2008 11:22 AM

What's a fire extinguisher?

Posted by: alchemist at February 15, 2008 11:27 AM

The anti-gunners (or as I call them, "Men Who Wear Their Mothers' Panties") always use the '19-year-old-drunken-college-student' argument and also seem to think that every student, if allowed, would carry a firearm. I am investigating ways to start a program on my campus to allow a number of permits for properly checked students to acquire a concealed-carry permit. In reality, posters all over the school claiming "100 of your fellow students are sanctioned to have concealed weapons on this campus" would probably have a great deterrent effect as well. Power perceived is power achieved.

What's also funny to me is how anti-gunners (MWWTMP's) think, "It can never happen to me" in regards to a shooting yet believe GWB is listening in on their private phone calls or they could be arrested and taken to GitMo.

Maybe instead of people like me who want the right of self-defense returned to the people, you anti-gunners (MWWTMP's)should just train college students and mall shoppers to 'hold still' and make it even easier for a madman to kill unarmed people.

And to MattM and his almost clever bear trap statement:
Have bears been breaking into houses and killing people? Am I allowed to put bear traps in my yard if I want to?
Has anyone been killed by meteors recently? I think five were killed yesterday by a gunman, but I haven't heard of meteors killing anyone.
Am I allowed to live underground to avoid meteors if I choose?
As far as your completely irrelevant peanut statement: If a madman burst into a room full of people allergic to peanuts and began forcing everyone to eat them, then yes, your analogy would work. As it is, however, it only makes you seem retarded.

Peanut deaths, I assume, are accidental.
Murder/suicide massacres are not.
Everyone is allergic to bullets.

If you have absolute faith that the police will protect you when the shit goes down, more power to ya'.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 11:52 AM

Oh yeah,

Why is it the law for me to defend myself with a seatbelt (a good idea of course, not the law but the seatbelt) yet unlawful for me to be able to defend myself in other locations?

I'll be god-damned if I'm am going to leave this world huddled on the floor pleading for my life.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 12:01 PM

And as far as Perico and his comment about 'ten people shooting'; law-abiding gun-carriers are typically not liberals. That means they would not close their eyes to shoot, shoot the wrong person because they spilled their latte, or have their limp wrists broken by the recoil.

Sorry, I like guns. I like big engines. I like being in control of my life. Guess it's a testosterone thing. Maybe you should get some.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 12:10 PM

"Armed, off-duty, police and sheriff officers stopped the shooter at the Appalachian School of law."

They were STUDENTS at the time. Just happened to have their guns in their cars. Their personal firearms.

According to Bridges, at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personal owned firearms.[8] Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[9] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C.,[10] pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe.

Posted by: Nicki Fellenzer at February 15, 2008 12:14 PM

The shooter, by the way, was an advocate of peace and social justice.

Posted by: V the K at February 15, 2008 1:02 PM

I think the "elephant in the room" once again is the medications. Over and over these shootings (or other less violent/less newsworthy out of character activities) have a common tag line of current or past use of mood-stabilizing medications. It was telling that all the articles I read that even mentioned the medications failed to mention what kind or any other details. After Columbine and more recently the Va. Tech shootings the pharmaceutical lobby worked hard to keep specific info from getting in the media. Several cases have been settled with gags and money.
As to "gun-tottin'" I guess having the potential for fire fights or tactical skirmishes is always a good thing to add to peaceful, civilized societies.

Posted by: T-Ray at February 15, 2008 1:10 PM

"The shooter, by the way, was an advocate of peace and social justice. "

In the same way Ted Bundy was a loyal Republican?

Posted by: OldYaleCokeDealer at February 15, 2008 1:14 PM

Well, Harris, you are exhibit #1 for not allowing guns in classrooms.

You like guns and big engines? Sounds like you have a lot of compensating going on.

Posted by: perico at February 15, 2008 1:18 PM

What a dishonest interpretation of the Second Amendment. And has been pointed out, crossfire would not have made the situation a better one.

Posted by: MeMeMe at February 15, 2008 1:28 PM

T-Ray,
I may carry my pistol every day for thirty years and never use it, but the one time it counts, like yesterday in that classroom, it would be really nice to be ready.

"Here, take this pistol. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."
Capt. Woodrow F. Call of the Texas Rangers (Lonesome Dove)

If you have ever had someone close to you die unexpectedly you are familiar with the "If only..." thoughts that pop up in your mind. "If only he had gotten caught by that red light a mile back that drunk driver would have already passed," or "If only she had gone to the movies instead of that party," etc. I think about the parents of all the kids who have been killed in these massacres and bet they must be thinking the same thing.

As far as peaceful societies; guns don't make a people uncivilized. They are tools, inanimate objects. They can, however, be used to protect your peaceful society from those who would prey upon your lack of defense.

Pertaining to the medications, yes, it's a factor, but there will always be the threat of psychos preying on those they perceive as weak or defenseless.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 1:31 PM

Perico,
Whatever you say, Hoss. Maybe I don't drive a Volvo or consider cowering under a table an acceptable form of self-defense. If you really want to know about my engine, guns, or the size of my dick I can send you some pics.

I mean, I am proud of all of them.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 1:42 PM

MeMeMe,

"crossfire would not have made the situation a better one."

Right, it's much smarter to just wait your turn or until he runs out of ammo or gets bored and kills himself. Good idea.

I guess with all the students hanging out so close to the shooter an innocent person could have been killed by someone returning fire.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 1:49 PM

"Mr. Kazmierczak bought two of the four guns used in the attack — a 12-gauge shotgun and a 9-millimeter Glock pistol — six days ago from a gun dealer in Champaign, and they were legally registered to him, authorities said. The two other pistols, a 9-millimeter and a .38-caliber, were being traced."

Posted by: norman at February 15, 2008 1:57 PM

"law-abiding gun-carriers are typically not liberals. That means they would not close their eyes to shoot, shoot the wrong person because they spilled their latte, or have their limp wrists broken by the recoil."

"Maybe I don't drive a Volvo or consider cowering under a table an acceptable form of self-defense."

Behold, the Internet Tough Guy (tm).

I'm shaking in my boots at your masculinity.

"I mean, I am proud of all of them. "

Do you want a cookie?

Posted by: Angryflower at February 15, 2008 1:59 PM

You are assuming that your hypothetical armed college student would (a) immediately recognize that the shooter presented a lethal threat, (b) not panic or freeze in terror, (c) have their firearm with them at that particular moment, (d) have a chance to draw their gun before being shot, (e) not be immediately targeted by the shooter once he saw that they had one, (f) not have his or her shot blocked by panicking students who are fleeing the scene, and (g) be able to fire and disable the shooter without accidentally killing or hurting other students.

That's a long chain of assumptions.

Most people either freeze or panic in this kind of situation. Even police officers and soldiers do not always react coolly under fire, and they have extensive training. And unless you have personally been in this kind of life-threatening situation, I don't think you really know how you would have reacted, either.

So, while it's not a bad idea to allow deputized, trained students to carry firearms as an adjunct to professional campus security officers (much like student EMS volunteers act as an adjunct to professional EMS), it isn't going to solve the problem of mentally ill people getting their hands on firearms.

Neither the pro-gun nor the anti-gun folks have been successful at keeping firearms away from criminals, gang-bangers and crazy people.


Posted by: Phranqlin at February 15, 2008 2:08 PM

Angryflower,

You can behold me on the Internet or in real life. We can talk about Shakespeare, thermodynamics, or engine swaps en anglais ou en français, s'il vous préférer. You can shake at my masculinity while you give me your Angryflower and your cookie. The main thing about the Internet, however, is you can't really know who you are conversing with.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 2:10 PM

Phranqlin,
For someone to be able to stop a massacre a lot of things do have to go right. I would still prefer taking my chances with my trusty pistol over getting in line at the door while some fuckhead pumps lead into my back. I don't know how long it takes to shoot 23 people but the reports say there were still students in the room when he took himself out.

In a situation like this the natural human response is fight or flight. When a man has a shotgun and you are unarmed, fight has been quite effectively removed from the equation. Since people were still in the room when he grew tired of killing you have to assume flight was also hard to achieve. These people were totally at the mercy of a man who wanted blood.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 2:20 PM

Phranqlin,

Also, your 'long' list of assumptions would, in reality, take about 4-5 seconds.

Here, this is pretty simple; please choose the one of these scenarios that sucks the least for you:

1. Armed gunner bursts into your classroom, shoots the professor and begins firing a shotgun into the body of students. There are two doors to the lecture hall serving about 150 students. No one besides the gunner has a weapon.

2. Armed gunner bursts into your classroom, shoots the professor and begins firing a shotgun into the body of students. There are two doors to the lecture hall serving about 150 students. One student has a Beretta 9mm and another has a Ruger .357 Magnum.

I can tell that most of the people posting on here about the evils of carrying a firearm have obviously never shot one.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 2:30 PM

Let's just all thank our stars that unstable people on medication have access to all the guns they need. Otherwise, we might never have to focus on horrible tragedies like this, and there would be nothing to distract us from the horrible, horrible state of the nation and our government.

Besides, it looks like the "armed populace" theory is working out really well in Iraq. That place would be in shambles if nobody there had guns.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 2:54 PM

I have done some target shooting but have never fired a gun in anger, and I honestly do not know how I would react if someone suddenly burst into my classroom or workplace and started shooting at me. I'd like to think that I'd act with composure and bravery, but since I've never been in this kind of immanent physical danger, I just don't know what I'd do.

That's the point I'm trying to make, Harris. You seem to assume that Joe or Jane Average Gunowner is going to whip out their firearm at 4-5 seconds notice and blast away a school or workplace shooter, but I am not so sure that this would happen. I think that they'd tend to react like anyone else: they'd have a hard time coming to grips with the situation and might not be able to pull off the kind of Rambo-esque scenario you envision. This alone makes me dubious that giving everyone a gun is going to prevent these kinds of mass shootings.

As I said before, nobody as yet has come up with a good solution for keeping guns away from nut cases. Banning guns clearly isn't working well, but I don't think having our campuses be awash in guns is going to help, either.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2008 3:03 PM

BTW, the previous anonymous coward's post was mine. :-)

Posted by: Phranqlin at February 15, 2008 3:04 PM

Some dildo used my name in the ^^ last post. I guess if you can't make a valid argument against a point you should just switch to blatant deception.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 3:18 PM

Ok, quick - someone take the number of deaths by suicidal gunmen and divide by the number of deaths in this country each year.

Now take the number of deaths by gun accidents and divide by the number of deaths in this country each year.

There's your answer why allowing guns on campus is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. You are FAR more likely to kill someone accidentally with a gun than you are to be killed by a suicidal gunman.

Posted by: MattM at February 15, 2008 3:21 PM

I've carried a gun since I was 19. It has always been an uncomfortable nuisance, except the 2 times I needed it; once to save my own life and once to save the life of a stranger.
Both times I had to have a gun RIGHT NOW. There was no time to consider alternatives and nothing else could be substituted.
I had to make split second decisions of life and death under terrifying circumstances that included the possibility of hurting or killing innocent people. If I hadn't made those decisions and possessed the tools to carry them out, innocent people would have assuredly been murdered, with one likely raped and tortured before being killed.
People who have never had to fight for their lives and engage in these academic arguments against self defense, especially the one that, in essence, says that since conditions aren't ideal you can't be trusted to have the means to stop a madman disgust me. Conditions are never ideal, in anything. There is always risk.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid or afraid. I carry because I accept the world as it is, ackowledge the danger and accept responsibility for my own safety and the safety of those around me. I have no desire to be a hero; I accept the responsibilies and duties of citizenship.
What makes legal carry so effective is that the bad guys don't know who's armed and who's not, increasing their risk. Mass killings happen in gun free zones for a reason.
I recently read an account by a woman who was saved by a carry permit holder that she didn't know. When she thanked him he said thanks weren't necessary, it's what people like him are here for. I share that attitude.
Those of you who choose to remain defenseless owe those of us who take on the responsibility of self defense a debt of gratitude. We make your lives possible.

Posted by: steve at February 15, 2008 3:26 PM

"I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid or afraid. I carry because I accept the world as it is."

No, you accept AMERICA as it is. The rest of the civilized world doesn't have this problem. Hmm...I wonder what they've done that we haven't...thinking....thinking...oh, that's right, they outlawed guns.

But true to form, conservatives view every problem through some sort of asshat lens that makes them compound every problem.

People want to end the war? I know, let's send more troops! People are tired of underfunded schools? I know, let's cut funding for public schools! People are tired of getting shot with guns? I know, let's get more guns in people's hands!

And if you question them or push them just a little, they tell you you're wearing your mom's panties. I guess that's almost a response, in 4th grade.

Posted by: Kabong at February 15, 2008 3:40 PM

"I'll be god-damned if I'm am going to leave this world huddled on the floor pleading for my life."

i don't remeber asking you to... but i can see that fear is a big issue with you

Posted by: ibfamous at February 15, 2008 3:45 PM

You are assuming that your hypothetical armed college student would (a) immediately recognize that the shooter presented a lethal threat, (b) not panic or freeze in terror, (c) have their firearm with them at that particular moment, (d) have a chance to draw their gun before being shot, (e) not be immediately targeted by the shooter once he saw that they had one, (f) not have his or her shot blocked by panicking students who are fleeing the scene, and (g) be able to fire and disable the shooter without accidentally killing or hurting other students.

That's a long chain of assumptions.

I don't believe it's a long chain of "assumptions" - more like natural actions of someone who practices and maintains a carry permit (like me), and I believe it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 15, 2008 4:02 PM

"We make your lives possible."

Wow. I missed that the first time, but wow.

That changes everything. Thank goodness there are people like you making my life possible. I feel bad for all of those people who live in countries where there are no guns, though. The poor residents of the EU don't even realize their lives aren't possible.

Let's not tell them though. Finding out your life isn't possible would probably weigh on you.

Posted by: Kabong at February 15, 2008 4:04 PM

It also sounds like you're trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone who knows what they're doing, and you just can't quite get there.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 15, 2008 4:06 PM

What is HI-larius is how anti-gunners (MWWTMP's) would rather run than fight, even when it's proven over and over that you can't quite outrun bullets.

You actually would choose to remain unarmed and undefended in a terrible situation like yesterday because you might possibly freeze up? Personally I would rather keep my options open. I can run with my pistol, but if the door is blocked or locked, or the shooter is standing in the door, I have other options open to me.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 4:13 PM

MattM,
Your argument is not only erroneous, it's also a red herring.
Let's put things in perspective. According to the National Safety Council, in 2000 there were:

43,000 automobile fatalities (why do we still allow cars on campus?)
16,200 deaths from falls (let's ban ladders)
11,700 deaths from poison (shut down the chemistry department)
3,900 drowning deaths (close the natatorium)
3,600 fire deaths (no more matches, lighters, etc.)
3,400 deaths from suffocation by ingested objects (we need to ban everything smaller than a football)
800 bicycle deaths (let's get those off campus)
600 accidental firearms deaths (all age groups)
And accidental firearm deaths are dropping.

According to the Department of Justice there are about 16,000 homicides a year (all age groups, all weapons including hands and feet) and around 39,000 violent crimes reported a year, including homicide.
There are several studies that estimate that there are between 200,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. This ranges from simply showing the gun to firing it. It is estimated that guns are fired in only 2-3% of defensive gun uses. Most defensive gun uses are not reported.

No one is advocating "giving everyone a gun". Whether or not to own or carry a gun is a decision that takes considerable thought and effort, not only to buy the gun and learn to use it, but also to get the permit to carry it. (I have carry permits from 3 states; I know whereof I speak)
Everyone doesn't have to carry a gun for legal carry to deter bad guys. Knowing that some are packing, but not who, will deter most. On school campuses the nuts know that no one is.
Carrying a gun is an intensely personal decision. There are many things to be considered, not the least of which is whether or not you can kill. Many people can't, and shouldn't carry a weapon.
Even though I carry I feel safer knowing that there are legally armed people around me. I may be distracted when the balloon goes up and somone else may be able to respond faster.

Posted by: steve at February 15, 2008 4:27 PM

Kabong,
Are you in America? If so, why?

Posted by: steve at February 15, 2008 4:32 PM

The residents of the EU traded freedom for security. They're beginning to find that Ben Franklin was right.

Posted by: steve at February 15, 2008 4:38 PM

Steve,

Good job on the statistics above. That added perspective.

I myself agree with Charleton Heston's credo:

"There are no good guns, there are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. A gun in the hands of a good, responsible citizen is no threat to anyone except bad people."

From now on I will forver call Charleton Heston "Charletus Maximus".

Posted by: UCA at February 15, 2008 5:13 PM

Mr. Kazmierczak bought two of the four guns used in the attack — a 12-gauge shotgun and a 9-millimeter Glock pistol — six days ago from a gun dealer in Champaign, and they were legally registered to him, authorities said.

Which has exactly what to do with the discussion? Because he could legally buy firearms? So what. So can people who want to defend themselves, or are you advocating Thought Crime be added to the list of things the Government needs to legislate?

If one of those in that lecture hall had a gun on them, the odds of that shooter killing 5 and wounding 16 more drops considerably. Nothing in life is certain, but the probabilities shift in a situation like this if there is an armed victim.

Something the asstard gun control people don't like to hear is that The Right of Self-Defense is a long tradition of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. It goes back 800 years. There is also the fact that Self-Defense is something that comes directly from Natural Law. There is also the fact that most of them conveniently forget that The Right of Self-Defense is ensured by both the 2nd and the 9th Amendments.

In case some of you fucktards forgot what the 9th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You don't wanna own a gun, be my guest. But I will fucking NOT sit quiet while others determine that I cannot own one and legally defend myself. Why don't you just out and out state that you want the State to control your lives? Be fucking honest about your Socialism, instead of furtive, dishonest shitheads.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red Leg at February 15, 2008 5:31 PM

I think the point that Phranqlin tried to make wasn't that you shouldn't carry a gun because you might freeze; it's that it's unrealistic to expect ordinary people to behave like a hero in an action movie.

I was shot at once in a drive-by shooting and was so stunned and shocked that there was no way I could have reacted in time to do anything. I was just lucky that I wasn't hurt or killed.

Posted by: Pontixe at February 15, 2008 5:33 PM

One more item I think people in favor of removing firemans or ammending our right to bare arms should think about is the fact that the guns that are here aren't going anywhere. If you outlaw firearms, then the only people who won't have guns are the law-abiding citizens. This would be like prohibition. Outlawing guns would increase the crime rate. Making criminals out of the innocent, victims of the defenseless, and guns would be even more attractive to the rebelious who normally wouldn't care about guns.

More gun laws? The people going off committing all the murders don't care about the gun laws. The kids at Columbine broke over 900 gun laws. I am not saying we shouldn't have gun laws period, we do need them to give law enforcement power to arrest. But seriously, the crazy people and the gang bangers don't even acquire guns lawfully.

To even think successfully removing all guns from society would remove violent crime is absurd. Murder and mahem was here long before guns. I wouldn't be so crazy as to tell a liberal person that censorship of tv and radio would reduce rape or other violent acts.

Posted by: UCA at February 15, 2008 5:33 PM

"Kabong,
Are you in America? If so, why?"

You bet your ass I'm in America. I'm not going to let a bunch of pansies with dick-substitutes scare me out of my country.


Posted by: Kabong at February 15, 2008 5:53 PM

Kabong,
Pansies with dick substitutes? I could have sworn my dick is real, let me go ask my wife.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at February 15, 2008 6:14 PM

Farmer Ted: if she's your wife, she hasn't shown very good judgment so far. Why should we trust her on that?

Posted by: Rand at February 15, 2008 6:20 PM

Rand,
Just because your unit doesn't resemble a penis doesn't mean every male is like that.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at February 15, 2008 6:42 PM

Did Moonbattery get linked to from some hideous leftard hangout? Unless all of these milquetoast jackasses are hashfanatic and his sockpuppets, what accounts for the recent surge in liberal assclowns? Liberal credo: "We can't formulate cogent arguments, so we engage in bizarre hyperbole and illogic." Nice going, intertards.

Posted by: skh.pcola at February 15, 2008 7:08 PM

You idiots are arguing that a crazy nutjob psycho killer should have access to firearms - on "principle".

Wow. There is apparently no bottom to your stupid.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 15, 2008 7:11 PM

Yeah skh.pcola this moron blog was linked to by Salon.

Now you're stupid too. Good to know you can spell "milquetoast" while typing with your penis.

Who knew conservatives were so versatile?

Fucktard.

Posted by: Me at February 15, 2008 7:15 PM

Van Helsing,
These numbnuts are killing me with this fill-in-the-blank name thing...
Well, I guess it's cool as long as someone can see the e-mail address.

I think after my third (or fourth) rum and Coke I realized that begging a psychotic killer who skipped his meds to spare you life is much easier if you are already wearing you mother's panties.

Personally I would rather punch a few holes in him with my Ruger Blackhawk .357 Magnum. I would then complete the day by re-boring a 302 just before viewing "Twelfth Night" at the Atlanta Shakespeare Tavern with a good pinot noir.
(They did a magnificent job on "Twelfth Night, BTW. Their comedies are vastly superior to their tragedies, so keep that in mind when making evening plans. "Romeo and Juliet" is playing currently but I have not seen that in performance yet. The Springer Opera House in Columbus is very good also, but reserve your seats early.)

Categorize that.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 8:45 PM

Wooh...Misspelled words, bad grammar and half parentheses... Don't tell my professors.

Wooh...Mispelt werds, bad grammer and half perenthesis...don't tell my professers...

Wooh...les mots mal orthographiés, la mauvaise grammaire et la moitié des parenthèses... Ne dites pas à mes professeurs.

Posted by: Harris at February 15, 2008 8:57 PM

Ah, even more comes out about this asstard. Seems that he was not simply your 'Average Joe' off the street buying guns.

Kazmierczak had a State Police-issued FOID, or firearms owners identification card, which is required in Illinois to own a gun, authorities said.

Even better, this douchebag had been a turn-key at a medium security prison. That requires more than a little bit of a background check.

He worked briefly as a full-time corrections officer at the Rockville Correctional Facility, an adult medium-security prison in Rockville, Ind., about 80 miles from Champaign. His tenure there lasted only from Sept. 24 to Oct. 9, after which Indiana prisons spokesman Doug Garrison said "he just didn't show up one day.".

Even better...

He also had a short-lived stint in the Army. He enlisted in the Army in September 2001, but was discharged in February 2002 for an "unspecified" reason, said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

Not some PTSD-suffering vet, obviously and not dishonorably discharged either. All the fucking background checks in the world wouldn't have caught this asshole. Too bad douchebag politicians who have bodyguards, police and state-troopers to protect them think the rest of us should be Sheep. Fuck them.

I'm wondering how long its gonna be before some students basically have to smuggle their legal permitted CCW firearms to campus classes. Better to be 'arrested' for some asshatted law-breaking (that could be Constitutionally challenged) than dead from some whackjob fucktard who decides he can't fucking grow some balls and blow his own head off, so he has to kill several people to do so.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red Leg at February 16, 2008 2:35 AM

You idiots are arguing that a crazy nutjob psycho killer should have access to firearms - on "principle".

Wow. There is apparently no bottom to your stupid.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 15, 2008 7:11 PM


I didn't make that post. They're too cowardly and stupid to use their own names - they can't win a debate so they attempt to win at a debase. It matches the MO of a dipshit. That's why they're... dipshits. Go figure.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 16, 2008 3:05 AM

"As the Founding Fathers understood, the only safe populace is an armed populace."

Of course, the founding fathers didn't have access to the statistics that modern social scientists have. So they couldn't have known that Americans are more likely to kill themselves or someone they know by mistake, than any "bad guy".

See, that's what we call a fact. Saying that we would all be safer if we were all armed is therefore "not true". (that's called "logic"!!!)

I'm not saying that we should be banning guns, we shouldn't, it's a constitutionally protected right, and I'm a civil libertarian. But arguing that it'd be safer if we all had 'em is either stupid or dishonest.

Posted by: ME at February 16, 2008 6:33 AM

ME,

You are right in your last sentence. I was just saying that the laws are there to keep bad people from getting the guns. Responsible gun owners should also include those who keep their guns locked up so kids don't get them.

Also, perhaps too much gun control would provide the same results as prohibition.

Thanks,
United We Stand

Posted by: UCA at February 16, 2008 6:54 AM

I don't believe in gun control.

But I also don't think actively arming people is constructive and will make us safer, either.

I don't think the school shootings are really related to the gun-control debate, either.

Who's to say they couldn't lock the auditorium doors and incinerate their victims with some sort of incendiary device, or hack as many of them to bits with whatever type of meat cleaver?

To blame guns and honest gun owners is too simplistic.

To think you can solve what is essentially a moral problem with guns in the hands of untrained civilians is irresponsible as well.

Posted by: hashfanatic at February 16, 2008 10:37 AM

Solving a moral problem isn't the issue. The government obeying the Constitution and not denying individuals the rights guaranteed (not granted) by it is the issue.
People have the right of self defense. It predates the formation of the United States and is, in fact, a basic human right. All people have the right to take measures to not be victims if they choose to do so.
The 2A was written to codify that right.
If some people choose not to exercise it, that's their right.
Every argument in favor of restricting or denying the right to own and possess weapons is an argument from cowardice. Fear of imagined risk is always at the heart of anti gun arguments even though time has proven this fear to be greatly exaggerated and unfounded.
Freedom entails a certain measure of risk.
I would rather be free with its inherent risk than to be a sheep at the mercy of evil and of government, which as history shows is often the same thing. Governments killed 100 million people in the 20th century, most of them disarmed by the very governments that promised to protect them and then killed them.
To paraphrase Franklin, those who surrender liberty for security will have neither, as the Aussies, Brits and continental Eurpeans are learning to their sorrow. Pacifism begets violence.
An armed man is a citizen. An uarmed man is a subject.

Posted by: steve at February 16, 2008 11:50 AM

To think you can solve what is essentially a moral problem with guns in the hands of untrained civilians is irresponsible as well.

You are, without a doubt, a dumbass. It takes as little as an hour to 'train' a person to use a gun. I say 'train' cause all it really involves is learning how to load, unload, point and fire a gun. That takes maybe 10 minutes of instruction of said 60 minutes. The rest is learning to fieldstrip and reassemble.

The gun is the weapon of the peasant/common man. They are incredibly easy to use, unlike the fucking longsword. THAT is a weapon you don't want in the hands of untrained civilians as it would simply get them slaughtered at the hands of a person that has trained most of their lives to fight with one. The gun is the reason your ass has liberty.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red Leg at February 16, 2008 2:56 PM

I am willing to bet the number of people killed by the hands of government exceed well over 100 million. WWII alone cost more then 72 million lives. Most of whom civillian.
WWI was caused by and fought over national pride and cost more then 25 million people. I know these numbers come from Wikipedia, but they are very similar to McDougal Littell's world history.

Posted by: UCA at February 16, 2008 2:59 PM

The problem was that there were not enough people with guns in the classroom. Instead of one maniac killing seven people, you might have had a situation where, say, 50 to 100 reasonable, well-armed persons (hopefully all with good aim) kill the gunman before he had a chance to finish, or to kill himself.

No, there wouldn't be anybody killed in the crossfire, of course, because everybody that has a gun magically knows what is going on at all times and knows who to shoot...like cops or soldiers who kill each other with friendly fire -- having a gun always puts you top of a situation!

And as far as everybody having good aim and ricochets and all that: No problem! All gun owners have eagle-eye aim. There no such thing as a bad shot or being caught in the crossfire in Dodge City.

Back at home gun owners in the know put their guns in a special place (under your pillow? night table drawer?) where they have easy access in case an intruder enters their home and they need to do some quick blasting.

Cautionary note: try not to let an intruder use your own own gun on you! (Statistically the odds are against you -- I know that most gun nuts won't accept this inconvenient fact, seeing how it is only propaganda put out by the gun control lobby. Empirical data can be so pesky sometimes, can't it?)

One final note to all you gun-loving guys and gals: When you're not carrying your firearm, please put it in place where your kids can't get their little hands on them!

Posted by: Ralph at February 16, 2008 3:21 PM


As a university professor, I reserve the right to pass back failing grades to a class that is NOT packing....

Posted by: CollegeProf at February 16, 2008 3:56 PM

I don't freeze when i'm getting shot at.


3ID 3BCT 3SQUADRON 1ST CAVALRY

ROCK OF THE MARNE!


Back home I possess a CCW permit. I think it's a little too easy to get, $40 and a smile. I think obtaining a permit should include mandatory firearms training(state run) and some situational exercises, as far as the mental health thing... not everyone diagnosed with some disorder pose a threat... For example, I am diagnosed with Bipolar
Disorder Type 2, I don't snap, i dont go into the psychotic manic state BP1's do, i just get depressed from time to time. I'm sane enough to defend the country, and operate a bradley fighting vehicle(god bless it). I had to go through a judge and have him speak with my psychiatrist to assure him i wasn't anymore of a threat to the public than the usual packer.

Posted by: Audie Murphy at February 16, 2008 4:25 PM

There are too many idiotic points to answer so I'll just hit two:
ONE: Liberals always deal in EXTREMES. "Arm EVERYBODY".
>No one supporting self-defence has ever said that.
TWO: The self-defence haters think that gun owners automaticly shoot at EVERYONE without provocation.
>I answered this already and so have others. The MURDERER came into the room and started shooting at random. It was pretty clear who was the agressor in this and OTHER cases.

FINALLY:
"WWI was caused by and fought over national pride and cost more then 25 million people. I know these numbers come from Wikipedia, but they are very similar to McDougal Littell's world history."

Sorry, UCA, but you're wrong. Russia moved it's army to the border of Austria-Hungary because they had a treaty to support the Slovaks. Germany declared war on Russia because they had a treaty to defend Autria-Hungary, France declared war on Germany because they had a mutual defence treaty with Russia, Great Britain declared war on Germany because they had a treaty with France, Japan declared war on Germany to gain a foothold in China, Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary over disputed territory (I think), and the United States declared war on "The Central Powers" because Germany had sunk some of our ships and were stirring up (More) trouble in Mexico. (See: The Zimmerman Telegram")
Ironicly, people had believed that the treaties would PREVENT a major war because it would set all the imperial powers against each other.

Posted by: KHarn at February 16, 2008 5:33 PM


A firearm is a tool. It is inanimate and cannot make decisions.

A firearm in the hands of a responsible citizen can be used to protect the innocent.

A firearm in the hands of a fool is very dangerous.

No one on this site or anyone who supports gun rights has stated that everyone should be armed. That would be like saying everyone should wear body armor all the time. You can if you want and you should be allowed the choice, but that would not be something many people would want to do. No one is saying every student in that room the other day should have been armed, either. What we are saying is that people who have a concealed-carry permit (who must be at least 21 with no felony record and no record of mental illness to get one)should have had the choice to carry a firearm.

Posted by: Harris at February 16, 2008 8:42 PM

When guns are outlawed, only the authorities (who have proven time and again they can NOT be trusted) will have them.

Cops and the Armed Services carry guns, and the citizens can't? I don't think that's a world any of us would want to live in.

People with mental problems kill a handful (or more) of their fellow citizens?
Not Much you can do about that.
A small price to pay to live in a country which believes in the right of it's citizens to bear arms.

Posted by: Robert in BA at February 16, 2008 10:31 PM

What if we had to pay a fee for our Free-Speech permit but was then only allowed to practice free speech in our car, in our home, or in strictly regulated free-speech zones?

What if we had to pay a fee so we wouldn't have to shelter soldiers in our homes? If we didn't have the proper paperwork would that mean we would be denied that right?

Have you paid for your Search and Seizure Protection registration card? Even if you have it, it doesn't apply anywhere except your home, car, or a few other places.

Is your Right to Trial by Jury insurance paid up? I know it only works in certain select instances, but it is your right, after you pay the tax.

Voter Registration Tax?

Why do I have to pay for my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Why, even after I have paid this tax, am I only allowed to keep and bear arms in a few select places?

Posted by: Harris at February 16, 2008 11:14 PM

Harris,
+1. Too many people seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Priivileges.

Posted by: steve at February 17, 2008 6:49 AM

People with mental problems kill a handful (or more) of their fellow citizens?
Not Much you can do about that.

A small price to pay to live in a country where fire arms are highly restricted.

Shouldn't you wingnuts be in Iraq?

Posted by: Mike at February 17, 2008 8:11 AM

Mike,
Yeah, you're right. We should realize that we have no rights other than what the State gives us. I am so glad the Founding Fathers saw fit to give us Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to a Trial by Jury, Due Process, and Protection from Search and Seizure. I'm glad you figured out that they weren't serious about that Second one, though.

Posted by: Harris at February 17, 2008 8:27 AM


3ID 3BCT 3SQUADRON 1ST CAVALRY

ROCK OF THE MARNE!

whoa, old timer. That battle was in 1914 making you around 114 years old. I don't want you carrying and what the Hell are you doing in a classroom?

Posted by: Bill T at February 17, 2008 8:30 AM

"Shouldn't you wingnuts be in Iraq?"

No, we're right where we belong-protecting the weak from predators. In society one of the duties of the strong is to protect the weak. It's a burden we shoulder gladly, even when those we protect are too stupid to see it. Our brethren in Iraq are fighting those who would destroy our republic from without. We wingnuts at home are busy fighting those who are attempting to destroy it from within.


Posted by: steve at February 17, 2008 8:45 AM

oh bs. the soldiers in Iraq are butting into a civil war heightened by our knocking out the people in power and allowing chaos to reign. Iraq never posed any threat to the US at any time.

Posted by: Bill T at February 17, 2008 9:01 AM

Hell, your boy bush didn't even know the difference between the sunni and the shiite sects before the invasion and occupation. They were all just brown people to him and not worthy of living.

Posted by: Bill T at February 17, 2008 9:03 AM

KHarn,

Your history teacher needs to go back to school, and I don't even see your point. I was not talking about the causes of America joining the war, which by the way, you left one out. How about the Bolshevik Revolution? America also wanted to stop the spread of communism in that part of the world. Perhaps you never heard of the "Red Scare". The note written by Arthur Zimmaermann which asked Mexico to "Make war with America and receive lands lost to them in the war with Mexico" was just the final straw. The declaration of "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" was another, and the ships you speak of were called the "Lusitania" and the "Arabic".

Keep in mind America's official policy regarding the war was called Isolationism. And for 3 years America sat back and watched while millions of people died in trench warfare. This policy of isolationism does not faire well, which also failed in WWII. Failing to act against tyrrany allowed Hitler to gain power and murder millions.

Now back to the causes of WWI. Militarism, Alliance Systems, Imperialism, and NATIONALISM. A feeling of strong national pride began after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte and the beginning of the German Unification. Tensions grew as countries competed for territory in Africa as they felt each country was superior to the next. Until finnally, a Serbian Nationalist, and member of the terror group called the "Black Hand", whose name was Gavrillo Princip, decided to kill the Austrian Prince Franz Ferdinand. This was out of strong NATIONAL pride. All sides were wanting the war to start and looking for a reason to declare war.

Now tell me KHarn, ol' justifier of slavery, exactly how many people were killed during WWI?
That was my point to begin with.

Posted by: UCA at February 17, 2008 9:15 AM

UCA,
You omnly said "national pride" but failed to mention the treaties, so I did. It was the TREATIES that caused the WORLD WAR, if those treaties had not been in place, it would have remained a fight between the Autro-Hungarians and the Serbs. That was MY point.

"Now tell me KHarn, ol' justifier of slavery,"

No, I did not try to justify slavery. I never made the attempt. Perhaps you are refering to my post where I made a few points to justify the South's bid for INDEPENDANCE when New England had repeatedly VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND THREATENED TO SECCEED (Six times between 1790 and 1860)? If you think that the south was all about SLAVERY and the north was fighting "that war" to END slavery, you should ask yourself WHY when the Confederacy was formed and the north had a clear majority, didn't they OUTLAW SLAVERY instead of RAISING THE PROTECTIVE TARRIFF?

"...exactly how many people were killed during WWI?
That was my point to begin with."

Then look here:
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

Posted by: KHarn at February 17, 2008 9:34 AM

Jeez, kinda off-topic, huh?

Posted by: Harris at February 17, 2008 9:50 AM

Harris asserts "The main thing about the Internet, however, is you can't really know who you are conversing with."

The fact that you feel it necessary to urge us to believe that you have a large penis is very telling.

It tells us that you have doubts about your penis size, and that you feel you are therefore inadequate as a man.

Posted by: Factchecker at February 17, 2008 10:17 AM

Fatchecker,

If you would take the time to actually read my comment and the subsequent one that I responded to you will see that I merely stated my fondness for guns and big engines and it was then insinuated by perico that I was compensating for penis size. At the time, as well as now, I replied that I can remove any doubt about all three if you or perico desire.

You and perico use the "Handbook for Debating like a Liberal" Rule #7 that states, "When you know your argument has been soundly defeated simply insinuate your opponent has a small penis. This works especially well on the internet since you have no clue with whom you are corresponding."

or the old stand-by;

Rule #1: "When you know you have no point in any argument, simply ask why that person isn't in Iraq. Continue to inject the Iraq War into any discussion on any topic, although it has absolutely anything to do with that topic. This way you somewhat, though not completely, hide the fact that you don't know anything about any topic."

Posted by: Harris at February 17, 2008 11:47 AM

Look Harris -- you seem to have a remarkable obsession with your penis size. Do you think about those of other men, too? Locker room a dodgy place for you, eh?

Perhaps you should buy another big shiny gun and brag about it.

Bragging and boasting is not as manly as you think it is.

Posted by: Michael Hendry out in NC at February 17, 2008 12:42 PM

I would like to see that picture of your penis, Harris. Can you post it somewhere and give the url.

I will tell you if I think it is small, normal, or large. Can you be stiff when you take the picture? Thanks.

Posted by: cool chick at February 17, 2008 12:51 PM

Yep, good sheeple, nice sheeple...just stick to the rule book and everything will be fine.

Posted by: Harris at February 17, 2008 1:47 PM

The lefties haven't made a single rational argument on this thread-and they're getting worse.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 17, 2008 2:46 PM

KHarn,

I am speaking from the south as a southerner. I am from a little town you may have heard of. Its called Memphis, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard old white guys down play, sugar coat, and try to justify the slavery issue in the south. "The war wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights and stuff. The north had slavery to. Blah Blah Blah." Why did you even state in your previous email about slavery that the 13th ammendment wasn't ratified by the southern states? The only concern about our country's history of slavery is that it was probably the single most embarrassing part of it. It was an abomination that should never have taken place. The alleged founding fathers came to this place in search of freedom, yet accepted slavery. Yet racial injustice continued for decades after it's abolishment.

As for WWI. My point was simply the number killed, which I was right on. Nationalism being the main cause. The treaties and signed by European countries prior to 1914 played only a small role in the cause, but bound all those who signed once the shooting started. Austria declares war on Serbia, Russia declares war on Austria to defend Serbia, and so on. They all wanted a war a decade before Ferdinand was shot. They thought it would be a glorious way to defend their national pride and test those wonderful new weapons.

Now, as for getting off the subject...
I believe that one goes out to the guys dealing with penis envy.

Posted by: UCA at February 17, 2008 3:29 PM

Well Harris, why AREN'T you in Iraq?


Posted by: jackmac at February 17, 2008 5:09 PM

UCA,
Hey brother, I just made an aside comment about 70 posts back about cars and guns and the lefters took the chance to change the subject. I simply wanted to talk about guns and gun control issues. (I go to another forum to talk about cars...) I can see by your earlier posts that we are on the same side.

Posted by: Harris at February 17, 2008 5:19 PM

jackmac, good sheeple.

Posted by: Harris at February 17, 2008 5:21 PM

The lefties haven't made a single rational argument on this thread-and they're getting worse.

hahahahaha you righties are advocating arming punk college kids, 75% of whom are drinking or on drugs because every once in a great while a couple of people get killed by a deranged, depressed college kid and you're accusing lefties of being irrational. sheesh that's too stupid to contemplate. If you want to advocate for metal detectors at the TB barb wired entrances to college campuses and armed guards in every building go for it. But cc for college kids. That's laughable and will NEVER happen. Thanks for the laugh. And btw, I DON'T want to see a picture of Harris's penis.

Posted by: Bill T at February 17, 2008 7:30 PM

Okay, so some commentors haves made reference to the rest of the world (i.e. Not America) being sane for not allowing its populace to be armed with guns.

Well, I live in such a country, so let me share my experiences.

Here in Malaysia, ordinary citizens are not allowed to have guns. If you have a gun, you must be either: A) A cop, B) A Soldier, C) A security guard, D) A rich businessman who needs a gun for SELF PROTECTION, or E) A criminal (surprise!)

Sure, it's actually much safer because guns are so rare around here... But guns have never been freely available either.

In the US, guns are already so prevalent that it would be impossible to gather them all up if a nationwide 100% gun ban law were implemented.

That leaves only the criminals (who - suprise! - don't obey the law) with firearms.

Posted by: BUUUUURRRRNING HOT at February 18, 2008 12:25 AM

I love gun posts. Shit always gets so heated.

Posted by: john doe at February 18, 2008 12:31 AM

BillT,
We can always count on lefties to be irrational and you don't disappoint.
No one is advocating "arming" anyone. If someone wants to be legally armed they have to go through all the steps on their own. That takes a good bit of thought and initiative.

"If you want to advocate for metal detectors at the TB barb wired entrances to college campuses and armed guards in every building go for it."

No thanks. I don't want to live in a police state where we're all separated by barbed wire and only the police have guns.

So, most college kids are walking around drunk all they time, eh? Punk college kids at that. How condescending-and a load of bs.

Actually there are places where ccw permit holders can carry on campus, like Utah.

Nitwit

Posted by: Anonymous at February 18, 2008 6:09 AM

Another senseless tragedy, another opportunity for the Right to say that the solution to gun violence is to bring more guns to the fight.

Posted by: Brian at February 18, 2008 8:29 AM

I wonder what would have happened if this kid didn't have access to guns at all? Now, maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll bet he wouldn't have shot anyone at all!

Posted by: Chris at February 18, 2008 8:48 AM

Proposed gun control laws would only take guns out of the hands of responsible people. Criminals and whackos will still be able to get their hands on guns. Shall guns be taken away from police officers, too? It seems safe to say that people who don't like to be near guns don't have them at home. However, police and criminals both agree, guns make them feel safer.
When a shooting happens at a school who will be called, police or unarmed security guards?
Fact: A few police use their weapons irresponsibly and probably should not continue to possess them. The vast majority of police neither use their weapon and if they do they do so carefully.

Fact: Every year tens of millions of American gun owners don't kill or even threaten anyone. All these armed citizens do no one any harm, they may even deter crime since criminals don't know which home they might invade could be their last.

Fact: Family members in households where guns are present are more likely to be gun victims than are people in homes without guns.
While I would like to have a hand gun as well as shotgun and rifle, I also have children and have elected to lock the firearms up off site. Even a gun in an at home locker might be accessible. The danger to my family from my own guns is far greater than their risk from criminal home invasion or such. I'll settle for having my baseball bat ready. At least until the kids are older. When I am older, weaker and alone, I may want my light hand gun close by.


No one has mentioned that better mental health insurance policies might reduce the suffering by all concerned. The overwhelming majority of people with mental health issues are no threat, but they and the people in their lives could benefit from better services.

A tragic example gun prohibition would not have prevented:
http://www.cmonitor.com
February 18, 2008 9:23 AM

LEBANON, N.H. - An 11-year-old New Hampshire girl hurt in a murder-suicide is improving.

The a sixth-grader was shot in the head, by her mother, a part-time police officer and former animal control officer. Mom then killed her husband and herself.

Posted by: Liberal_Veteran at February 18, 2008 9:13 AM

that battle was... yes, we still honor them. That's our division's "name"

Rock of the marne" division "sledgehammer" brigade.

Posted by: Audie Murphy at February 18, 2008 10:17 AM

Tell you what, since you like the founders so lets allow anybody in the US to have a muzzle loader...any automatic or revolver or multi barrel item is not allowed as the "Fathers" you are so fond of did not have them available when they made their decisions....when the wackjob patriots went on a shooting spree he was easy to tackle once he had fired his shot!

Posted by: madmatt at February 18, 2008 11:42 AM

Whether this is a case to use for arguments of gun CONTROL (nobody is saying you can't have a firearm as long as you are a reasonable person and are willing to pass a background check) or not, I am wondering why it's so damn hard to get a bullet proof vest?

I mean if you're free to own a gun, why can't I get a bullet proof vest on the up-and-up? Maybe I'm ignorant, but can any one tell me how to get one? Thanks!

Posted by: KC at February 18, 2008 11:54 AM

Pinnacle armor is a good place.

or http://www.bulletproofvest.org/product/product01.asp


get IIIa to stop pistol bullets... toss an ESAPI plate in there if you're real paranoid.

Posted by: alex at February 18, 2008 11:58 AM

KC, you don't have to have a background check to by a muzzle loader. no4473.

just an ID that says you're 18

Posted by: alex at February 18, 2008 11:59 AM

I'm the leftie against gun control (see my above post about the authorities having guns).
I've never had a gun and probably never will own one, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to.

Mike,
I'll never go to Iraq. That war was a loser from the get go.
I was just being realistic about living in a society where guns are prevalent.
You aren't going to stop crazy people from killing innocents (especially in a country that doesn't want to care about people with mental illness).

I'm with Steve (above), who thinks the strong should protect the weak.
That's the best argument for raising taxes to care for the poor I've ever heard.
It's also a great argument against the Iraq War as well ("We're only killing the civilians to protect them.")

God bless us lefties, Steve.

Posted by: Robert in BA at February 18, 2008 1:09 PM

we have GOT to allow guns on airplanes
And hockey games

Posted by: john Ryan at February 18, 2008 1:53 PM

Cool. 6 lbs isn't much at all! I train with a weight vest that tips the scales at 55 lbs (and feels like 100) so this shouldn't be much of a bother.

I'm not worried about people with muzzle loaders, nor do I really want one or any gun, though I've heard the firing range is fun.

I just think there should be a limit. I mean the whole argument that an armed populace was a good thing in the framers' mind in case you needed to stop an individual psycho is just absurd on its face. I'm sure what they had in mind is that an armed populace could more easily stage an uprising when their government no longer represented them according to the Constitution. Seems more and more like it every year.
Unfortunately, I am NOT for the populace having access to the kind of weaponry which would be necessary to overthrow a corrupt government with the firepower of ours. The time for that has come and gone, and for that reason I don't think people need access to fully automatic military spec weaponry without some FAR MORE INTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND WAITING TIMES, if AT ALL.

My two cents.

Posted by: KC at February 18, 2008 2:51 PM

So, most college kids are walking around drunk all they time, eh? Punk college kids at that. How condescending-and a load of bs.

I didn't say all the time, of course, but you don't real all that well, do you. Alcohol and drugs and kids barely of their teens and with their first taste of freedom go together like... apple pie. Been so since the beginning of time. Allowing college kids to cc on campus is just a bizarre recipe for disaster except in your perfectly well ordered rightisist world where anyone who goes through a gun training course will of course never get angry, depressed or suicidal. not to mention the potential carnage if say at the next school shooting instead of one deranged gunman we have an additional 50 semi-trained John Waynes blasting away in panic in a chaotic situation.

There area bigger fish to fry than this tempest in a teapot. A lot more people die from car wrecks and stepping off the curb and being hit by a bus, or from lack of adequate medical insurance (18k a year) than will ever be shot by a depressed student with a black trenchcoat and a newly purchased revolver/shotgun.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 18, 2008 5:22 PM

nice post, kc. That very accurately details the founders reasoning for the second amendment.

Posted by: bill T at February 18, 2008 5:25 PM

UCA SAYS:
"Why did you even state in your previous email about slavery that the 13th ammendment wasn't ratified by the southern states?"

I was trying to point out that the north had violated the Constitution and thus, the South (Note which I capitalise) was jsutified in sececession.
But it's true, according to the US Congress of 1866, the Southern states were not part of the union! Therefore, our people could not have possibly voted on and ratified a Constitutional ammendment (President Andrew Johnson pointed this out when he tried to veto the "14th ammendment"). But if they were WRONG about that, then the northern government had acted unlawfully in unseating our representitives and (one might suggest) had commited an act of REBELION against the United States government.
I don't remember if I mentioned that they demanded that our state governments ratify the "ammendment" and over-threw them when they failed to do so, replaceing them with Yankee sympathisers who were told to ratify the bill in order to "get back into the union". It is a fact that ONLY an American state can ratify a Constitutional ammendment, so HOW could this be considered leagal?
UCA, I am not advocation a "New Confederacy", I just want people to stop treating us as moral LEPERS!

I didn't mean to get into it THIS much, but the others are talking about their "wee-wees", so we may as well throw the topic to the wind, too!

Posted by: KHarn at February 18, 2008 5:36 PM

Hey, here's my "leftie" take on the whole argument that if we take HIGH POWERED AUTOMATIC AND/OR ASSAULT RIFLES AND GRENADE LAUNCHERS out of the hands of law abiding citizens that only the criminals will have them.

We're the largest manufacturer of such arms in the world. Our arms are used in skirmishes, civil wars, and criminal enterprises worldwide, and some of them come back here and end up in crminals' hands at home; and no matter how you choose to look at it these companies make a larger profit by selling more and more such weapons.

Also, I'm sure (without having access to the statistics) that plenty of gun violence is perpetrated with stolen firearms, but I'm focusing on the "big guns" here. Not that I don't think someone whose gun gets stolen from him/her isn't stupid in one way or another.

I just bet that most of these criminals who have automatic weaponry (and more powerful even) didn't rip it off out of someone's living room rack when they were at the football game. This stuff was built here to sell to militaries and made it back into the country via illegal routes.

So what exactly is the pro-gun stance these days? What lines should be drawn with regard to what "level" of weaponry you should be able to buy legally with just your ID and a very brief background check? Waiting period?

Enlighten me please. This really isn't an issue I follow.

Posted by: KC at February 18, 2008 6:27 PM

Hey KHarn,

They put so many new topics on this site, I haven't been able to backtrack so much.

The gay book thing got me a little furious.

But I shall see you on the upside.

Posted by: UCA at February 19, 2008 8:46 AM

--
LEBANON, N.H. - An 11-year-old New Hampshire girl hurt in a murder-suicide is improving.

The a sixth-grader was shot in the head, by her mother, a part-time police officer and former animal control officer. Mom then killed her husband and herself.
--

Ah yes, this obviously could have been prevented if fucking eleven year olds were able to CC. It's obviously the gummints fault.

Posted by: Nick at February 22, 2008 10:47 AM

Ralph Kramden said: "A strict constructionist (like me) would argue that we have the right to use the technology of our times."

Well, I sure wish you'd do something to change the laws. I have been wanting to have some tactical nuclear weapons in my basement "just in case", but the government is constantly denying me my 2nd Ammendment rights on this.

I mean when they said "arms", the Founding Fathers meant "arms", right? If they wanted to exclude hydrogen bombs, they would have said so.

Posted by: wmforr at February 25, 2008 11:36 AM