This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Guy Faulkes on Gun Control Laws

Posted at the request of Anonymous Guy Faulkes. The contents are out of my expertise.

The following issues have all been brought up before, but they have never made it out of committee when the legislature was controlled by Democrats.

The first and most important is changing the law that prohibits you from using your Second Amendment rights during a declared state of emergency. As it now stands, every time it snows three inches in the flat lands, a state of emergency is declared that automatically prohibits you from being able to take a gun outside of your home. Protection should also be given that would prohibit the government form confiscating your guns during a state of emergency such as happened in the Hurricane Katrina incidents.

The second and almost as important, to my mind, is amending the laws on concealed carry to allow one to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol or a venue that charges admission. It makes little sense that I am denied the most efficient means of self-defense when I go to a restaurant that serves alcohol, but a drunk can consume as much as he wants with his meal and then go out and drive away under the influence. I would be in favor of the law requiring that those that carry concealed be prohibited from drinking at all. As for the other issue, it also makes little sense for me to be able to carry in a grocery store, but not a movie theater.

The next change needs to be the passage of a Castle Doctrine law that protects a person from a frivolous law suit if he has to use a gun to protect him. This law should also remove any requirement to retreat from a place from which a person has a right to be located.

The fourth item is the banning of carrying guns on public property. This property belongs to everyone. There is no reason to prohibit a person that has been through the extensive training and background check that is required for a concealed carry permit to be prohibited from being able to exercise his Second Amendment rights on property that he owns as much as does anyone else. Some examples are state, county, and municipal parks, college campuses, etc. There needs to be a preemption clause that would prohibit counties and towns from denying citizens their Second Amendment rights on public property under their jurisdiction. For example, the Town of Blowing Rock has an ordinance that prohibits carrying any “dangerous weapon” on any property owned by the town. As people have been killed with pencils, I am at a loss as to the manner in which this is subjectively enforced. Also, the town does not own anything. The taxpayers own the property, not the bureaucrats.

Please contact your legislators concerning these matters. The contact information for the legislators serving Watauga County is as follows:

Johnathan Jordan
NC House
919-733-7727
Jonathan.Jordan@ncleg.net
NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2217
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096

Dan Soucek
(919) 733-5742
Dan.Soucek@ncleg.net
NC Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 310
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925

124 comments:

Sarkazein said...

In Texas, we have some restrictions on carry. I can carry in a place selling and serving alcohol. If the place sells over 50% of their total receipts as alcohol (served) they post a sign showing a big red 51% at the door. So I can't carry there. Also, I can't carry to a political rally. Then there are just a bunch of other rules like hospitals, courts, and any place where there is a specific size and text sign saying in both English and Spanish no carry. Some amusement parks and sports arenas are also verboten.
But, I CAN have adult beverages at a restaurant or the attached bar, armed to the teeth, as long as there is no 51% sign.
Every couple of years the TX legislature knocks off a few more restrictions, even though the Texas Constitution Section 23 tells the government we have the right to bare arms.

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Sarkazein said...

During Hurricane Ike, with power out for 15 days, my son and I chased away (tried to apprehend) some looters between my house and my neighbors house
(a 6'-2'' young single woman). I was armed with a 12 Gauge, and a 40cal 16+1 1911 and my son was armed with a 9mm S&W (he was 17 at the time). We searched and couldn't find them so we called the police. For once they got there real fast. I was still standing and talking to my 6'-2'' young single woman neighbor, holding my shotgun and the 1911 in my waist band when the cops approached me and my son. They asked to hold the shotgun while they searched the area, but didn't "hold" the pistols. When they finished searching the area, they handed me back the shotgun and one shell they ejected.
I cannot imagine a State restricting the lawful carrying of guns during an emergency. THAT one in NC has to be overturned... it makes no sense.

Sarkazein said...

Michael Moore said owning firearms for self defense is racist.

Sarkazein said...

How much would you pay to have ring-side seats at a Michael Moore vs Ted Nuggent debate on freedom?

guy faulkes said...

How much would you pay to have ring-side seats at a Michael Moore vs Ted Nuggent debate on freedom?

This would be priceless. Nuggent would stick it to Moore. (Pun intended for those that know of Uncle Ted's prowess with a bow.)

Blogger, as you said this was outside your area of expertise, you have given me an excuse to pontificate. I am pretty busy today, but expect a post explaining each of my four points.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"This would be priceless. Nuggent would stick it to Moore. (Pun intended for those that know of Uncle Ted's prowess with a bow.)"

Explain?

Sarkazein said...

"ring-side seats", "stick it to him"... No POV, it can't be explained to you because it may send you out on a Mall hunting expedition. You know how this kind of talk sets off your kind.

Sarkazein said...

POV asks-"Guy

"This would be priceless. Nuggent would stick it to Moore. (Pun intended for those that know of Uncle Ted's prowess with a bow.)"

Explain? "-POV


Allow me: (POV see dictionary) (note: Guy Faulkes said; "Pun intended")

The pun, or paronomasia, is a form of word play which suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of words, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect.[1][2] These ambiguities can arise from the intentional use and abuse of homophonic, homographic, metonymic, or metaphorical language...

This has been a public service announcement for the liberally impaired.

G.I.G said...

LPOV, could never understand the right to bear arms. It requires personal responsibility to protect ones self family or possessions. He believes it is the governments job to protect him. If he, his family, or friends are robbed, raped, beaten, killed or stolen from them it is the governments job again to make him whole at taxpayers expense.

Sarkazein said...

POV- Please don't ask me to explain what I mean by...homophonic, homographic

Sarkazein said...

Here is a good North Carolinian

Jack said...

Myth of the Hero Gunslinger

Sarkazein said...

Jack, don't carry... it is your choice.

G.I.G said...

Jack, If you do not force me to not be able to carry, I will agree to not force you to carry. Deal ?

Jack said...

I don't believe I'm forcing anyone to do anything.

Sarkazein said...

Jack's study says: The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Jack this may be because those with a gun were taking a stand or it could be because the actors were in a mutual assault. The study doesn't say. Two dopers shooting at each other is still an assault, and yes holding a gun sideways and shooting while you are holding up your pants is dangerous. I would say you were suckered in on this study.
How many were lawfully armed innocent victims of an armed assault? It doesn't say.
How many of the unarmed innocent victims were raped, beaten, or disfigured from the assault? It doesn't say. Sounds like a study with an agenda to me... how 'bout you?

Sarkazein said...

Jack- Remeber the study showing all the children being killed by guns? Turns out the majority of the "children" killed were 17 to 20 and were killing each other. At first glance, you'd think it was talking about little innocent children being killed by gun violence... nope, gang bangers killing each other and cops killing 19 year old "children". Most anti-gun studies are crooked.

Jack said...

It’s not my study, but thank you. And of all organizations to attack research methodology, I’m not sure the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine is a top candidate. The article did not stipulate the participant’s socioeconomic status or “doper” recognition. However, it was a random sample, so there’s probably a good mix. If you don’t like the Ivy League schools, then here’s the New England Journal of Medicine and Health Affairs (a peer-reviewed journal).

“this may be because those with a gun were taking a stand” By getting shot?


“How many of the unarmed innocent victims were raped, beaten, or disfigured from the assault? It doesn't say.” Right.....because that wasn’t the focus of the study.

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with concealed carry. But basing the argument for armament on “personal protection from X” does not have a strong foundation. Those without live-fire training from police or military backgrounds do not possess the necessary cognitive skills to operate a firearm in a real scenario. There are too many untrained individuals who legally own firearms. Unfortunately, it is easier to (legally) own a firearm than it is to obtain a driver’s license. 


Jack said...

It’s not my study, but thank you. And of all organizations to attack research methodology, I’m not sure the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine is a top candidate. The article did not stipulate the participant’s socioeconomic status or “doper” recognition. However, it was a random sample, so there’s probably a good mix. If you don’t like the Ivy League schools, then here’s the New England Journal of Medicine and Health Affairs (a peer-reviewed journal).

“this may be because those with a gun were taking a stand” By getting shot?

“How many of the unarmed innocent victims were raped, beaten, or disfigured from the assault? It doesn't say.” Right.....because that wasn’t the focus of the study.

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with concealed carry. But basing the argument for armament on “personal protection from X” does not have a strong foundation. Those without live-fire training from police or military backgrounds do not possess the necessary cognitive skills to operate a firearm in a real scenario. There are too many untrained individuals who legally own firearms. Unfortunately, it is easier to (legally) own a firearm than it is to obtain a driver’s license. 


Jack said...

NEJM
Health Affairs

Sarkazein said...

Jack- Also with your first link, the author using the Arizona shooting asks the "what if" questions concerning the armed citizen who helped in the disarming of the shooter. The things he "what if'ed" didn't happen, yet were more more prevalent in his article than what did happen because of liberal anti-gun mythology.

Training in self-defense with a firearm is important, but there are hundreds of cases annually where just the display of a firearm by the untrained peasant has thwarted crime.

Jack said...

And how many cases are there when the display or improper use of a firearm escalates the situation? Which seems to be 4-5 times the rate of your occurrence.

Sarkazein said...

"...improper use of a firearm.."???????

Jack said...

Yes.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- Your study is convincing to you, because it enforces the anti-gun liberal myth that it is safer to rely on the goodness in the heart of the perpetrator than to try and defend yourself with a handgun.

As your study, as far as I can tell, does not address questions like, who the shot person was (an innocent lawfully armed citizen) or what happened to the victims choosing to be victims (unarmed citizens) than the study tells me nothing. It is just another study in the support of liberal anti-gun mythology.

You (your choice) can rely on the goodness in the heart of an attacker, I will rely on good old fashion 38 Special S&W revolver with the new fashion laser pointer built in.

Your study also does not ask the wounded people, would they have preferred rape or bludgeoning over a bullet wound. Again your choice. Rape maybe OK for you, I'll take the bullet.

Jack said...

If you so disdain an Ivy League school and the New England Journal of Medicine, then please present credible research on your behalf.

If I remember correctly, you have military experience. Therefore, you have firearm training. Hence, I would trust you in the possession of your .38 (and others). It's the others I don't trust. i would love to see more stringent training requirements for gun ownership (comparable to concealed carry requirements) and a crackdown on the black market. Unfortunately, the Brady Bill has only succeeded in strengthening and expanding the black market for firearms.

Jack said...

I think the last two sentences of the NYT article speak volumes,

"Jenkins is a lifelong gun owner and he carries a concealed weapon, by permit. He also carries a modicum of common sense. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive."

guy faulkes said...

Jack fails to realize that more guns cause less crime. If he is interested he can obtain the definitive study by John Lott. The studies such as he is using require that you shoot your assailant in order to have successfully defended yourself. It does not count if you show him the gun and he runs away. People successfully defend themselves with firearms about four times the number of times a firearm is used in a crime.

Jack, do you have a concealed carry permit? If not, I would suggest you get one so you can comment with some knowledge. You sound as if you have no knowledge of the training you receive. You are starting to sound like Liberproverbs18;2. It might interest you to know that as a group, holders of concealed carry permits are the most law abiding in the country, including law enforcement officers.

Lets address my first point which is the need for passing a law that would prohibit the government from infringing on your Second Amendment rights during a declared state of emergency. During such an emergency it is illegal to have a gun outside of your residence. It does not matter if it is a natural disaster or a civil break down such as a riot.

During Katirna, the government confiscated the personal property (firearms) of private citizens. They took these weapons in violation of both the Second and Forth Amendments. When the courts ruled they had to return the firearms to their owners, they said they were unable to do so as they kept no record of from which person they stole the property. If you got your property back, you had to have a bill of sale or at least the serial number of the weapon. In many cases, it did not matter much as the guns had been damaged and stored so they wee piles of rust.

Most chilling of all was the video of four stalwart law enforcement heroes tackling an elderly woman when she told them she did not need to evacuate her home because of possible looters. She told them she was armed and showed them her revolver. I beleive they broke her arm as they stole her means of defense. Also, it is ironic that during this disaster, many law enforcement personnel abandoned their duty and became looters.

During several riots, the only properties that were safe were those that were defended by their owners. likewise, people have the right to defend themselves when they have to travel during these emergencies. If you needed to check on your daughter or elderly mother, would you want to be armed when you went to their homes in such a situation?

In North Carolina this law has been selectively enforced. The only time I know that it was at the forefront of an emergency was when it snowed in King, North Carolina and the mayor declared a state of emergency. The chief of police said it would be enforced due to the possibility of irresponsibility on the part of the citizens of King (in agreement with Jack's sentiments) . This is highly ironic as the chief was a former Watauga County Deputy who is said to have left her patrol car unlocked at Watauga High School, which lead to her service weapon being stolen off the seat by a student.

Being a follower of the rule of law, it is my opinion that one should not have to break it in order to be able to use his Second Amendment rights. The easiest way to achieve this is to change the law as several other states have done. If not, this is going to go to the Supreme Court eventually.

This has been proposed in the North Carolina legislature, but was locked up in committee by the liberal chairperson.

More on the other points later.

guy faulkes said...

Blogger, see if you can find my post on gun control laws. The spam demon got it.

Sarkazein said...

"Unfortunately, the Brady Bill has only succeeded in strengthening and expanding the black market for firearms."-Jack

Criminals (convicted felons) rarely buy guns over the counter, yet they have guns. The government laws only restrict the lawful gun owner.

Studies use phrases like "only 4 % are helped with the use of a firearm" which makes a lot of sense to the people not in the 4%. Studies use ratios and odds to describe a group's odds. I don't care about the group, either does the person being assaulted, I care about me. Do you think if you were laying in a pool of your own blood (unarmed) watching a loved one (unarmed) being assaulted, you would be thinking of your better chances of surviving because of the odds the NEJM or Penn State gives on you, or would you want a gun... any gun?

Blogger said...

Guy, found your comment and Jack's right next to an ad in Japanese on how to contact sexy women. I left the Japanese where it was but sent yours on.

Again, the spam filter is awesome but every once and a while it makes a mistake. Can't figure out what might trigger it.

Blogger said...

arkazein, your comment "Rep. Ellmers Plans To Carry Handgun" brought back memories of my Peace Corps time in Honduras. One part of Honduras was still like the old west. When we held a teachers' meeting, the superintendent of schools would get off his horse, and saunter in. He looked like something out of a Western movie, cowboy hat, chaps, and a huge pistol in his holster.

Sarkazein said...

Blogger- Re the cowboy superintendent. Was there much chastising of the Super by the Peace Corp or Peace Korpes (as Obama would say) members because of his anti-real world of Sheriff Andy Taylor's persona?

Blogger said...

Sarkazein, Peace Corps volunteers were known for acculturating. They embedded themselves deep into the people.

The volunteer in the Olancho Province where the superintendent was, was so into the culture, he wore a cowboy hat with an ocelot tail. He had a Boa Constrictor as his pet and rat chaser. He rarely ever came into the city. He was the model Peace Corps volunteer and had a hell of a time re-acclimating to the U.S., as also did I.

G.I.G said...

Shatner had it right all along . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwH5UPj5ZJE

Liberal POV said...

GIG

Okay, even I enjoyed the great script as well as the acting, but is this the reality?

G.I.G said...

LPOV, it is more likely that would be the outcome of the crime, then if the antigun crowds took away the chance of anyone having the option of defending them selves. I would care to imaging the mugger did not obtain his weapon through the standard legal process.
But then the left would have us hope that the criminal would not shoot even if he was given everything he asked for.

Liberal POV said...

GIG

When was the last time you had to pull a weapon in a city or town?

I'm getting to be an old man that has traveled much of the world and I've alway found people will most often meet your expections what ever they are.
Even if I were being robbed, I think I had rather they have my possessions then take my sole by living in fear of my fellow man.

Do conservatives have classes to learn such mistrust and fear?

I can't imagine living with the fear and mistrust you and fellow conservatives must live in.

G.I.G said...

LPOV, I will say it one more time DO NOT SPEAK for me! I claim no association to any specific party. I do tend to identify with the libertarian party more then the other two.
I came to Boone 20 plus years ago from the Northeastern part of our nation. From a state that it is next to impossible at this time to get a CCW.
I did have one there at that time, Due to being a bar manager i would have to make large cash deposits in the late hours of the night/morning.
I did two times display my weapon by making it visible while holstered while making those deposits, with less then honest looking individuals in the area.
Would i have not been assaulted for that deposit bag if i did not make my weapon plain to see on me? Maybe not.
But I can say with out any doubt i did not get mugged for those deposits at 4:30 am with it in plain sight while making those deposits.
LPOV, you may be ok with giving your property to a scumbag who wants to rob you to make your soul feel better. I will do my best to make sure that my property stays mine. And then let the scumbag criminal worry about if he gets to have his soul judged or not on his own.

guy faulkes said...

Liberalproverbs18:2, no one requires you to live up to your moral responsibilities to protect yourself and society by carrying the most efficient means to do so; a gun. Indeed, many do not think you are stable so it may be a good idea that you do not. However, we are not going to allow you and your cowardly liberal friends to tell us we cannot.

Take your sole what? If you only have one of something, does it not distress you to have it stolen? Did you mean take your SOUL? If that is the case, only God or the devil can do it. A murderer might kill you, but they cannot take your soul. If you are referring to being a coward, then that is your personal problem.

Now on to the second point. The concealed carry laws in North Carolina prohibit you having the most effective means to protect yourself in such places as banks, restaurants that serve alcohol, places that charge admission, parades, and political rallies. In many of these places, it is legal to carry in the open, but not concealed. The government has arbitrarily decided were you are able to exercise you civil rights including the right to protect yourself and your family and the manner in which you do so.

You can carry in the open in banks, etc. but not where alcohol is served. It does not matter that you do not drink. There is one draw back to open carry. There is a law that prohibits going armed to the terror of the public. According to a judge that I talked with, this means that it has to be proven that you intended to terrorize someone for the charge to be legitimate. However, you could still be arrested if a liberal magistrate or D.A. wanted to push it. You might also get a liberal judge that would not dismiss the case. The odds are good that you would be released by a jury, but it would cost you a lot of money. It is better to carry concealed. No one even knows you are carrying unless you need the gun. At that point innocent bystanders will be glad you are.

As I stated before, people that hold concealed carry permits are the most law abiding and among the most safe users of firearms in existence. Placing limits on where one can carry concealed is purely a political ploy to gain control of a persons freedoms. These prohibitions need changed.

More later.

Liberal POV said...

Corrected

GIG

When was the last time you had to pull a weapon in a city or town?

I'm getting to be an old man that has traveled much of the world and I've alway found most people will meet your expections what ever they maybe.
Even if I were being robbed, I had rather my possessions taken then my soul by fearing all strangers.

Do conservatives have classes to learn such mistrust and fear?

I can't imagine living with the fear and mistrust you and fellow conservatives must live in.

Liberal POV said...

GIG

If you look back at my past post I've agreed people like a late night business owner or others who may be targets for robberies or assault like judges, attorneys, threatened spouse have a legitimated reason to carry a weapon in public.

That's quite different than the posters here like Guy and Sark who just have a gun fetish and you know the type I'm talking about.

I didn't get the soul spelling changed quick enough did I?

guy faulkes said...

I see you have nothing to say regarding your lack of social or moral responsibility, Liberalproverbs18:2. Could this be because of your cowardice?

Sarkazein said...

POV- Why worry about your soul?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

I don't have a gun fetish, I don't have a dangerous occupation, I don't know any enemies, I don't feel threatened and I don't live in fear.

I've never been in situation where later I said if I had only had a gun.

I've been in very dangerous places where guns toting guards were in phone store, hotels, gas stations and restaurants and I moved through the streets unarmed alert but not in fear.

Sarkazein said...

POV- Why worry about your soul?

Anonymous said...

Libs Next Door Neighbor

Jack said...

Sark, the imagery you use (“rape”, “laying in a pool of your own blood”) is specifically designed to elicit a very personal and visceral response. However, in the process, you strategically overlook certain key points.

The common criminal is interested in material goods and will carry a weapon for psychological purposes only. The more deliberate criminal is intent on bodily harm and will achieve this goal despite the situation. The deliberate criminal is vastly more rare than the common criminal, although he garners most of the press coverage. You can easily escalate the situation with the common criminal, but not with the deliberate.

Again, you are trained in the use of firearms. But far too many are not. Because of this lack of training, one is far more likely to be harmed, or harm an innocent bystander than they are to take down a simple mugger. To employ your imagery, an untrained individual is more likely to shoot his daughter while she is being raped than he his to shoot the rapist.

You state, “I care about me”. That is a common feeling. However, with so many untrained firearms owners, I may be that innocent bystander that is harmed. So, while I care about myself, the actions of others can impact me greatly. To obtain a driver’s license (at 16), one must take a class with supervised practice, take a written exam, and take a practical exam. To legally obtain a firearm, you must fill out some paperwork and wait a few days. Training must be a requirement for legal gun ownership.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- I agree training is important. But it should be a personal choice to further ones training. Practice is good too, getting to know your limitations and your weapons limitations. I do not think it should be a government mandate. On all things mandated by the government, it costs money. The poor are always hurt the most by government mandate.

In your rebuttal, you write of the common and the deliberate criminal. You see, I didn't know you had a choice in which kind you wanted during an attack.
If it is a common criminal, I should run home and get my gun and come back to the scene of the crime... if I choose a deliberate criminal to assault me, I should bend over and take it like a man. OK, I am starting to understand. You are however looking at the situations as though you are not involved, just sitting in the dorm reading a text book about a situation. My imagery was an attempt to bring your thought process out of the text book and into the streets.

Jack said...

While I generally agree that it is one’s personal responsibility to further one’s training, I think there should be a minimal training level set as a standard. Plus, a training mandate (probably more feasible on the state-level) could produce an economic bonus....hear me out:

Let’s create a fictitious program and say there is a requirement for a 16-hour course with written a practical exams (with a re-certification every 2-4years). These programs could be administered through private companies (similar to concealed carry courses in NC). This would, in turn, create jobs for the local economies. A portion of the course fee and subsequent re-certification fees would go to the state, creating a new revenue stream. All state-level administrative costs would remain fairly the same as now, as Brady Bill paperwork requirements would be replaced by new program paperwork. Also, by absorbing Brady Bill requirements into this new training program, gun dealers would not have to dedicate their own manpower to the effort. Consequently, gun prices would decrease, as the dealer’s overhead cost burden is lessened.

This plan would, however, slightly increase the overall cost of gun ownership. But those who are serious about gun ownership and adequately trained tend to own multiple weapons and spend hours at the range. Therefore, a small increase in overall price would not seem to curb consumption. It also wouldn’t do much to decrease the black market.

I do not want to leave firearms training to mere “personal choice”, just as training to drive a vehicle (or a 3000-pound weapon) is not left to personal choice. An untrained driver behind the wheel of a Suburban is highly dangerous to the general public. The same is true of the untrained gun owner.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, you never answered the questions. Do you have a concealed carry permit? How much training was required for you to get it? Did you pass? If you do not have a permit, do you not think you should get the training before you talk about it? However, you bring up an interesting point in that no permit should be required to exercise your rights. This may make an interesting case for the Supreme Court one day.

Let us add a few more questions. Do you know how much training is provided in the Basic Law Enforcement Training course. Do you know how much additional training is required? We are not talking about qualifications, we are talking about training. However, how often does law enforcement qualify?

What is the difference in the amount of training?

Do you also think training should be required for free speech? How about for worshiping at the church of your choice? Which other rights do you think one should be trained for before he has them?

Do you think that, as we all have our rights as affirmed by the Second Amendment, the use of firearms should be mandatory education in our schools. I personally could go for that option.

On to the third point. There is a tendency for criminals that have been hurt when their victims resisted them to file suit for damages. While this is ridiculous, courts have actually awarded damages in these cases.

When one breaks a law, he is responsible for every result of that action. If I stub my big toe on a door frame when I go to the aid of my family, then the burglar is responsible for my injury.

Likewise if I am forced to shoot someone in self defense, then that person is not only responsible for his injury, he is responsible for any mental trauma I experience. This person has no complaints about what happened to him. He opened the door to violence and is responsible for what ever comes through the door.

The removal from the requirement to retreat is best reflected in a situation in which a crook tells you to give him your money or he will kill you. Should you be required to surrender your property to him in hopes he will not follow through with his threat of deadly force, or should you defend yourself? That is an individual choice that a person should make for himself without the worry of criminal or civil repercussions from the result of his decision.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- Which of the Bill of Rights refers to Driver's License?
But while we're there, an anecdotal story: I decided after decades of on and off motorcycle operation, without the mandated M on my driver's license, to take the 2 day course and the 2 tests. One test at the course and the other at the DMV. This course also "allows" you to not wear a helmet if you so desire as often I do and did anyway. The course was two days off work and $180 (guess). The visit to the DMV was to take the 2nd written test and spend 2 hours and 10 minutes waiting in line, then 5 minutes to take the test (that's with a super slow moving hit r miss video screen test. Then another $? amount of money to the DMV to take my picture, see if I could see, and start the two week process of stamping an M on my new license.
After standing in line for 2 hours and 10 minutes the mind goes numb... great for testing. Why not take the test (written) while you're standing in line?
You really have to say, 3-days off work to comply with the government, plus a couple of hundred dollars. It helped others economy, but not mine.

How did we survive as a society without these government mandates? Better, much better. I learned to fire a gun safely and accurately at 6 years old, standing with my Dad on the side of a creek out in the country.

Johnny Rico said...

Jack,

You are nearly as stupid as the Liberal Socialist Sheep POVs. You believe it necessary to put restrictions (training) on a fundamental, God given right? How about mandatory training on intercourse, fellatio, and pole dancing? Some types of sex are considered illegal, so perhaps we need to train people how the government wants themto have sex while they are in their private homes with their lovers? Make sense you idiot?

What about chain saws, matches, axes, kitchen knives, lawn mowers, half empty five gallon buckets and swimming pools? Those kill a lot of folks each year you know. You see, dolts like you are the reason we have the highest per capita prison population in the world. Make a law, hire thousands of unneeded cops to enforce the arcane legislation you feel-good dolts came up with and walla, we have what you are after, a police state.

Back to gun training. You believe a God given, inalienable, Constitutional Right should have training attached to it? Even Hitler wouldn't have thought of something as insiduous as this. You liberal sheep claim you want training, but scoff at the idea of firearms training in elementary schools. Your double standard hypocrisy is glaring and bright you dull dolt.

LOL!!

Good post by Faux and Sark - they really ate up Jack and the thugs on this thread!

Your ole pal

Samantah Giglioni

Johnny Rico

PS Stings don't it

guy faulkes said...

Where did you go, Jack? I am waiting for you to tell me about your concealed carry permit training and that of law enforcement.

Johnny "Jack Attack" Rico said...

Guy,

Jack is back posting with the Liberal Socialist Sheep POVs. He was crushed immediately forcing him to return to the communist utopia mirage he is living in. I thought we were talking some sense into the idiot but that is a fruitless foray when dealing with brainless, la la la la, liberal socialists.

Johnny Rico

guy faulkes said...

Blogger, I covered the fourth point fairly thoroughly in my original post asking for the thread, so I will not elaborate. Thank you for the opportunity to expound on my ideas.

I would be interested in your opinions or comments, particularly on whether you think training with firearms should be mandatory in our schools.

Jack said...

Guy, I have firearms training and enjoy practice. I do not, however, have a concealed carry permit. I do not find it necessary. Additionally, I do not have enough information to comment on BLET or other specific law enforcement training. Do I think training should be mandated for free speech or freedom of worship? Your attempted point is flimsy at best. Speech and worship do not possess the ability to maim or kill. Firearms are inherently dangerous, so a minimum training standard should be set.

The Second Amendment reads “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.”

It says nothing of the right to keep private stocks of ammunition or of a right to use the weapon. Also, as a “well regulated militia being necessary”, should it not be a Constitutional requirement that anyone who owns a firearm is to associated with a militia?

Again, I have no problem with the Second Amendment or with concealed carry. I simply think there needs to be minimum required training for ownership of a firearm. I set forth a broad idea for a hypothetical program. If you don’t support training, why not remove driver’s license requirements? Why not remove training and certification requirements for physicians? Why not remove basic training requirements for military personnel?

Sarkazein said...

Well jack, you were doing pretty good up 'til your last comment. The 2nd Amendment is settled law and the Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd pertains to individuals. Common sense says ammo required. That is not even a question in law or amongst the sane.

HD has a latin term for the examples you used regarding doctors etc.... and doctors are licensed by the State not the Fed.

Just this one question, how did society get along before government mandated training courses?
In Boy's Life magazine you could order a rifle by mail when I was a kid.

Jack said...

My proposed training program would be administered on the state-level.

Sarkazein said...

Here is a Boy's Life from 1950, the year of birth of some of the best people in the world. Scroll to the last few pages and read the ammo adds and the rifle adds. What changed in that short 60 years, The Great Society

Sarkazein said...

Jack- In Texas, where I have one of the first Carry license issued, there is an 8 hour course required. 8 hours ain't much. I have never seen anyone fail in the many renewal classes ( 4 hours/the last half of the 8 hr class ) I have attended. The law in this state and I think NC is "Shall Issue". I believe that is so the State cannot over-rule the 2nd, or if some pinco gets aholt of the reins, he can't make the test so hard no one but his friends and relatives and celebrities can pass it.
Point being, the State pretends to put up a course and we pretend to take it. Cost $160 + a half day off work. I only do it in the spirit of cooperation. I carried for years before the State decided to let me with 8 hours of training and a few bucks every four years for a new plastic card with my mug-shot on it.
The intention is good, but it is all bogus.

guy faulkes said...

Well Jack, enlighten us about your training. Do you think your training is superior to that of the majority of other gun owners? Where did you get it? As you do not know what training is required for a concealed carry permit or for BLET, what exactly makes you competent to have an opinion about them or if the majority of gun owners do not have a sufficient amount of training? How much training do you think most people have? Why do you think this?

Again, you dodged the question. Are there any other rights you feel require training in order for one to have them? What is the difference in a right and a privilege?

As Sark has said, The Supreme Court has settled the rights issue. Please do not become a dolt such as Liberalproverbs18:2 and contend that ammo is not part of keeping and bearing arms. And by the way, bearing arms means using them.

As for speech and worship not having the ability to kill, what do you think caused the Holocaust or the Inquisition? What about lesser jihad by which militant Muslims say all non Muslims are to be killed and try to follow through with it? Do you remember 9-11?

Jack said...

Who knew that advocating for firearms training and responsible ownership would draw such animosity?

Sark, you may have some conspiracy-theorist mistrust of the University of Pennsylvania and the New England Journal of Medicine, but what about Harvard University or the Centers for Disease Control?

Look at Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center, part of their School of Public Health. Scroll down to #18 and #19, under “Accidents”. I’ll copy and paste the major findings for those who wish not to read for themselves:
#18 “Gun availability and state unintentional firearm death rates”......”For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths.  The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.”
#19 “Firearm storage and unintentional firearm death across US states”......”Both firearm prevalence AND questionable storage practices (i.e. storing firearms loaded and unlocked) were associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.”

Also see the CDC’s report on firearm-related deaths of children (ages 0-14) from the major industrialized countries. It’s a bit older, but you get the gist.

Accidental/unintentional firearm deaths could be severely limited with proper training. Accidental deaths and injuries are what we should try to decrease through proper initiatives.

Jack said...

Harvard
CDC

guy faulkes said...

Jack, get your facts straight. Accidental firearms deaths have been falling for years while at the same time the level of gun ownership has been rising. And yes the organizations you mentioned manipulate data to give the result they want for political purposes. Of course there are more gun related deaths in an area where there are more guns, just as there are more deaths of all kinds in areas with more people. This is like saying you can grow cabbage in dirt. Duhh.

Are you ever going to answer the questions? There is no animosity in them. There is debate as to whether you know what you are talking about. By ignoring the questions, you negate your argument.

Jack said...

Guy, the objective is to avoid accidental deaths. I don't understand why you and others are so opposed.

And which organizations can I cite? According to you and Sark, Ivy League research universities, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Centers for Disease Control are all out.

guy faulkes said...

You did not refute my logic on numbers and still refuse to answer the questions. Why is that? Would it be detrimental to your argument if you did so?

guy faulkes said...

Jack, you can site any organization you wish. However, that does not mean we cannot debunk their statements. To put it yet another way, are there more automobile accidents in areas with a lot of automobiles or in ares with few?

To quote you: To every contributor: Do not think you are immune to the rules of bounded rationality. I believe you are hoist on your own petard.

One more time, will you please answer the questions?

Jack said...

Guy, I cannot (in recent memory) remember when you cited any sources for your rants. If your method of “debunking” the statistics is accusing an Ivy League institution or one of the most respected medical journals in the world of being politically corrupt, then you will never accept any credible sources. Of course there are more auto collisions in areas with more automobiles. But think, how many more collisions would there be if we didn’t train our drivers? Again, why are you so opposed to firearms training?

I am not an expert on the subject. Nor do I pretend to be. Just as you are not an expert on many of the subject areas in which you have ravenously commented. But to answer your moot question; I have major firearms training from the military. In the civilian sector, I’ve worked as a paramedic and as a SWAT-medic in Charlotte. I am comfortable with guns and own a handgun that is securely locked away and unloaded. I do not have a concealed carry permit and I am not BLET certified, but I have a working knowledge of the processes.

Liberal POV said...

Jack

I don't want to get into your debate with Guy you do very well on your own.

My own experience with Guy is he has a misconception that if he just post a comment it automatically becomes a fact that should not be questioned.

Good luck!

guy faulkes said...

Jack, if you are not BLET qualified, then you had no police firearms training. Depending on your branch of service, your specialty, and when you were in, you might have adequate firearms training from the military. You might not.

Do you think you have superior training to that of most gun owners? If so,why? Your resume is not very impressive. have you ever even had a hunter safety class?

What other right do you want people to have training for before they are allowed to exercise it?

At least you made a start at answering the questions. Please finish.

I do not need sources to ask logical questions. Your sources said more people were shoot in areas where there are more guns. I countered that with the observation that ratio of numbers of gun accidents are falling while gun ownership is expanding. I then asked you whiter there are more car accidents where there are a lot of cars than where there are few cars. The number in one area versus the other is not relevant. The rate is.

http://www.gunsafesource.com/Firearm-Accidents.htm

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article6917828.ece

You can get much more information by visiting the NRA site.

guy faulkes said...

Out of ideal curiosity, Jack how do you know on which subjects I have expertize aand what makes you qualified to ascertain at what level I hold expertise. I cannot remember your questioning me about any subject.

I had questions about your expertise and subsequently questioned you. So far you have mainly not answered.

Jack said...

Perhaps you are an expert in every subject area. But chances are that you are not. Nor does your style of argument indicate any high level of expertise. However, ultimately I don’t know.

Which questions have remained unanswered?

guy faulkes said...

Jack

What other right do you require training for before you can exercise it?

What gives you the right or competency to make this decision?

Does it make sense to you that if there are more guns in an area, then it is only logical there would be more gun accidents in that area than in an area with few buns, just as there are more automobile accidents where there are lots of cars than there are where there are few cars? Are there more accidents where there are many people than there are where there are few people?

As the number of gun accidents have been falling for years and gun ownership has been increasing for years, does this ratio not negate your argument about requiring training?

As you have admitted you are not that well trained yourself, why do you think you are competent to tell others how much training they need?

What give you the right to infringe on the civil rights of others?

If you have any questions about my expertise on this issue or any other, all you have to do is ask.

guy faulkes said...

I forgot the most important question. As everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, do you think the proper use of a firearm should be taught in schools on a mandatory basis?

Jack said...

I’ll mark the questions numerically (1-7) for ease of presentation.

#1: We’re talking about responsible gun ownership, not infringement of rights. Focus.

#2: I’m not making a decision (obviously). But I can have an educated opinion, unless you’d like to restrict my thoughts.

#3: I’ve already stated the obvious correlation between more guns and more accidental injuries. The objective is to reduce the prevalence of accidents. Or do you consider accidental injury an inevitability of gun ownership?

#4: Gun ownership has been decreasing. The numbers come from the General Social Survey. It is one of the highest regarded sociological and demographic surveys in the world. It has been in constant operation in the United States for nearly 40 years. It is a nearly perfectly designed research activity. So you can’t “debunk” it by calling the GSS liberal slander. It won’t work.

#5: I do have training. For the rest, see #2.

#6: See #1.

#7: Offering firearms training in the schools is an interesting proposition. As long as it is administered in a safe manner, the idea may have some validity.


The one question I have asked of you, repeatedly, has not been answered. Why are you so opposed to firearms training?

Jack said...

I’ll mark the questions numerically (1-7) for ease of presentation.

#1: We’re talking about responsible gun ownership, not infringement of rights. Focus.

#2: I’m not making a decision (obviously). But I can have an educated opinion, unless you’d like to restrict my thoughts.

#3: I’ve already stated the obvious correlation between more guns and more accidental injuries. The objective is to reduce the prevalence of accidents. Or do you consider accidental injury an inevitability of gun ownership?

#4: Gun ownership has been decreasing. The numbers come from the General Social Survey. It is one of the highest regarded sociological and demographic surveys in the world. It has been in constant operation in the United States for nearly 40 years. It is a nearly perfectly designed research activity. So you can’t “debunk” it by calling the GSS liberal slander. It won’t work.

Jack said...

#5: I do have training. For the rest, see #2.

#6: See #1.

#7: Offering firearms training in the schools is an interesting proposition. As long as it is administered in a safe manner, the idea may have some validity.


The one question I have asked of you, repeatedly, has not been answered. Why are you so opposed to firearms training?

Jack said...

GSS Graph 1
GSS Graph 2

Jack said...

GSS Graph1

GSS Graph 2

Jack said...

GSS Graph

Sarkazein said...

Jack- where does anyone say they are opposed to firearms training? I, for one, have answered your question about why I oppose government mandated firearms training to qualify for your 2nd Amendment Right. This is an inalienable Right, not a privilege granted by the government.
I assume you are suggesting government mandated approval (passed the efficiency test). I see just another way to turn a law abiding citizen into a law breaker.

Another example: My former brother in law, served in the military, saw some combat, joined the Fairfax County Police, hunted, retired young from the PD, went to work for the County Sheriff's Office, and accidentally shot himself with a single shot black-powder rifle while climbing down from a deer stand. Almost impossible... he died from the wound.

Again, it is the liberal mind trying to create the Utopian world. The government camel's nose is far into the tent, its stinking the place up.

You say only the people the government says passed its test, Liberal POV says only the occupations he thinks have a need for the gun as he describes the need, It is a Right, leave it alone as it relates to government permission. Felons have guns, people with brain disorders have guns, X-wives have guns... there is no government plan that will change any of that, short of confiscation.

Let the individual train because he/she wants to.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- Your graph could also reflect trust in government. I assume this was a telephone or written survey. If some telemarketer calls my house and asks how many guns I have, he would soon hear a dial tone after the slam. Some may fear saying they have one in the home for many reasons as our society becomes more skeptical. Or are you going to show a graph proving people are now less skeptical?

Jack said...

Sark, I'm sorry that solid statistical data scares you. Maybe I just give you too much credit.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- I don't know, do you know how the information was gathered? The only way I know is, they asked. Am I wrong? If strangers called you on the phone, and said they were doing a survey on how much cash you keep on hand, or how many gold coins do you collect, would they get truthful answers?
At one time, school nurses and some doctors were asking children if there were guns in the home. I told my kid if anyone asks you that question, tell them you'll tell them, but then you'll have to kill them. That way they would call me and I could handle it.

Jack said...

Haha
Those who answered "only some of the time/never" went from 75% to 67% between 1992 and 2007.

Jack said...

General Social Survey
Read and peruse if you would like

Jack said...

General Social Survey

Jack said...

GSS

Sarkazein said...

So only 25% might have figured it was none of their business. I don't know, but I just can't imagine answering that question (how many guns are in your house) unless you're one of those pantie- waists who are extra proud of being anti-gun. I have trouble believing anyone who owns guns would answer the question... maybe it is just me.
As far as how many don't trust the government, how would you answer if you really really didn't trust the government. "Hello. Yes, this is Bob. Who is this? Oh, you are a stranger and you want to know if I keep guns in the house? If I answer, it may become public and I fear the government and don't trust the government as far as I could throw it! Seven."

Jack said...

I think it is just you. And in your scenario, the conspiracy nut would over-estimate his gun numbers? Then the GSS data would even more telling than the graph illustrates.

So far, according to the Sark and Guy, here are the organizations that are unacceptable as data sources:
-The University of Pennsylvania
-The University of Chicago
-Harvard University
-The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
-The New England Journal of Medicine
-The National Opinion Research and Center and The General Social Survey

Interesting.

guy faulkes said...

Jack your sources had flaws in what they published. You refused to address them.

I do not recall you asking whether I was in favor of being trained in the use of firearms. You said we were against it as a statement.

It might interest you to know I have trained hundreds of people.

Your egotistical belief that you somehow get to approve if people can exercise their constitutional rights unless they meet YOUR criteria is what i find interesting as with your refusal to answer any of the questions until pressed. Also many of your answers are dodging the question of are less than accurate. For instance while you do have training, you don't have very much, nor is it current.

The definitive book More Guns -Less Crime readily proves gun ownership has been increasing.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- I can tell you one thing, and you won't find this in a survey, since 2008 guns have been selling at record levels. At one time within the past couple of years, the stores were stripped bare of semi-automatic rifles like the Bushmaster .223 AR 15.
I don't doubt someone came up with the survey I just doubt it can be accurate.
Another story- My neighbor across the street, a lawyer, is as liberal as they get. He and his father have one of the largest collections of Kennedy memorabilia in the world. They even owned the Honey Fitz for a while. He is absolutely rabid anti-gun. During Hurricane Ike, he was in DC, he asked my son (16 at the time and his dog feeder) to gather up his guns and keep them in our house as there were looters (some illegal aliens and some Democrats) in the area during the 15 day power outage. My son asked me to help him. Two of us two trips later had carried all the guns to our house. This guy was so liberal, he dressed as Barbara Bush on Halloween and handed out candy telling the kids how evil her son is. I just don't think, if a surveyor called, he would have given accurate answers. I believe he would say no.

Jack said...

Sark, if you base all your thoughts and convictions on stories and cognitive biases then I have definitely given you too much credit.

Jack said...

Guy, some politically-slanted book by a gun-nut is never going to trump the GSS (especially one that you can't even quote directly). Again, the General Social Survey is held in the highest regard by researchers (liberal and conservative) from around the world.

Jack said...

“Your egotistical belief that you somehow get to approve if people can exercise their constitutional rights unless they meet YOUR criteria is what i find interesting” -Guy

That statement is almost comical, given your denial of 14th Amendment birth-right citizenship and your egotistical belief that you somehow get to approve if people can exercise their Constitutional rights unless they meet YOUR criteria.

Jack said...

As for John Lott (the author of “More Guns Less Crime”), he is not held in high esteem.

Lott’s analysis has been denounced as “fundamentally flawed”. The National Academy of Sciences condemned his methods, stating “while it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."

His “research” is shady at best and has never been replicated by other academics. Nor have a majority of his papers been peer-reviewed. His national “survey”, from which he bases his findings, has been “lost”. Lott has been unable to produce the raw data, he has been unable to show evidence of hard-copies of either the survey or answer sheets, and he, somehow, has no record of the students that assisted with the work.

As if it isn’t enough that Lott’s data was fabricated or that his analysis of his pretend data was seriously flawed, Lott created an online fake persona in an attempt to enhance his credibility. He created “Mary Rosh” and presented her as a former student of Lott. As “Mary Rosh”, Lott praised his own works and even called himself “the best professor I ever had.”

That, by the way, is an actual “debunking” of a source. 


Sarkazein said...

Jack wrote- "Sark, if you base all your thoughts..."

I will base my thoughts and convictions on real life experiences and you can base yours on text books and surveys written by others. This is like POV, he can be shown a video of something happening yet still has to wait for someone to tell him what happened and why.

On these two specific questions, I don't think people will give an accurate answer.

Sarkazein said...

John Lott- Interesting, a conservative academic has bad things written about him by the 98% liberal rest of the academics. Guy Faulkes experienced, I am guessing, John Lott's instruction and Jack read what others wrote about the conservative Lott.

" His “research” is shady at best and has never been replicated by other academics.."

You mean the other 98% liberal academics?

Liberal POV said...

Jack

You may have noticed when Guy, Sark or for that matter the whole conservative movement needs a fact they just make it up and post it on the internet after a while Fox repeats the fiction as if it were true.

Fox fiction and conservative creativity.

Notice how they run in fear of reality or real debate.

guy faulkes said...

Liberalproverbs18:2, you have already admitted you have not knowledge or training on this issue. Jack admits he is not an expert, except that at some time in the distant past he had basic training in the armed forces.

This leads Jack to the conclusion he is qualified to tell people they should not exercise their civil rights unless they meet his approval. The blog fool supports him in this endeavor.

By the way Jack, Lott was not a gun nut. He started out in the camp of the anti-gunners. Believe the biased reports if you wish. I prefer to believe documented research that lists it sources.

You appear to be getting desperate, bubba.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, I have never said Obama was not an American citizen. I have said it is strange he will not release his birth certificate. At worst , he has a duel citizenship, as his mother was an American citizen. This would bring up the question of whether such a person can constitutionally be President. I am not an expert on this particular topic? Are you? I do not know and as that is not the subject of this thread, I will not research it at this time.

However, this does illustrate that you are wrong once again. However, nice try with the liberal tactic of changing the subject.

Anonymous said...

Read it and weep, Jack.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_f27bf10e-fd3f-512f-8869-ad131df71c06.html

Liberal POV said...

Guy

" I am not an expert on this particular topic? "

Now that's a first! It's a start.

guy faulkes said...

I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. As you are the opposite of an expert on everything, Liberalproverbs18:2, it is easy to see why you would think I am.

Sarkazein said...

POV is an expert on what other people should have done to their money.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, I saw your link on another blog. Apparently people are starting to contact their state legislators to try to pass this in North Carolina.

Jack said...

From a ranking of the “liberal-ness” of colleges:

Harvard University - 67%
University of Pennsylvania - 57%
University of Chicago - 62%

So 98% liberal? Not quite, but let the conspiracy live on.

Sarkazein said...

And of course you trust people to answer that survey completely honestly too.

Ignore the fact that so many far left liberal people deny being a liberal... Rather, Prokaw, Jennings, Cronkite, but I'm sure the professors are more honest when asked. Often liberalism is masked with the term progressive or independent.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, you neglected to say who did the ranking? Maybe the Huffington Post?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Some degree of liberal political views come from just seeking to understand a problem.

I think it's called knowledge.

You and Guy are truly conservatives as you have no desire to see problems from any angle other than your own narrow point of view, which is distorted and lacks reality.

Knowledge is not something you seek.

Anonymous said...

Knowledge is not something you seek.

This is from Liberal POV!

BWA- HAAAAAAA1111

Liberal POV said...

Anonymous

Did you take a smart pill last night or sleep at the Holiday Inn Expess? Maybe you could have some razor soup for lunch and answer the follow questions?


Tell me what you personally know about growing up in grinding poverty with working parents?

Tell me the negative effects of a social safety net that provide health care, living wages good public schools, safe neighborhoods with adequate police protection, pell grants, GI Bill, Medicare, Social Security, Mental Health programs for those who need them, good safe inexpensive public transportation, public parks, public arts and music, child care for low income giving low income mothers a real choice to abortion?

I can certainty give you examples of what happens when this is not done.

Look at the drug use in America compared to any other civilization in history. Why?

Look at the prison population in America. Why?

The wealthiest Americans have political power and have had tax cut after tax cuts and the poor go to jail.

What about the for profit prisonS The whole Arizona immigration bill was funded by for profit prisons wanting to lock up those without the right paper work at tax payer expense.

Once society is neglected, as our has been, favoring tax cuts and low wages to a social safety net,the gangs move in to fill the vacuum of real government, people find both opportunity and excape with drugs, crime takes root, high percentage of citizens just give up and both local criminals and wall street figure out how to take what little they have.

How does Canada, Sweden, France not have these problems to the same degree as the US?

Anonymous said...

Liberal POV, What was that last rant in reference to? It doesn't answer anything I have said. It is completely off the subject of everything on the thread.

You need help from one of the other POV's.

Blogger said...

JR "Here is today's Red State take: President Obama’s going to be starting a push for “gun control” next month, sayeth insiders - which is a statement that would worry me more if the President hasn’t been a bit of a jinx at using the bully pulpit up to this point. I’m trying - and failing - to come up with something where his “assistance” has been a net positive: all of the Democrats’ dubious legislative successes have been on the Congressional level thus far, and when it comes to skill at advocacy Obama, well… is awful. One wonders what the man hopes to accomplish.

And no, I don’t know what the heck “gun control” has to do with the economy, either."

guy faulkes said...

Gun control is something that most of the liberals are going to run from as fast as they can. There is nothing that will insure that the majority of the 23 Senate seats the Democrats have up for grabs will change sides as much as Obama making this an issue. The American people become more pro-gun every year.

Liberal POV said...

Anonymous

"You need help from one of the other POV's."

Perhaps I should post as Anonymous to make it easier to tell who's posting?

This was your highly intelligent post right?

"BWA- HAAAAAAA1111"

A person with such intelect should be able to address a few problems we have a common interest to finding solutions.

Tell me the negative effects of a social safety net that provide health care, living wages good public schools, safe neighborhoods with adequate police protection, pell grants, GI Bill, Medicare, Social Security, Mental Health programs for those who need them, good safe inexpensive public transportation, public parks, public arts and music, child care for low income giving low income mothers a real choice to abortion?

I can certainty give you examples of what happens when this is not done.

Look at the drug use in America compared to any other civilization in history. Why?

Look at the prison population in America. Why?

The wealthiest Americans have political power and have had tax cut after tax cuts and the poor go to jail.

What about the for profit prisonS The whole Arizona immigration bill was funded by for profit prisons wanting to lock up those without the right paper work at tax payer expense.

Once society is neglected, as our has been, favoring tax cuts and low wages to a social safety net,the gangs move in to fill the vacuum of real government, people find both opportunity and excape with drugs, crime takes root, high percentage of citizens just give up and both local criminals and wall street figure out how to take what little they have.

How does Canada, Sweden, France not have these problems to the same degree as the US?

guy faulkes said...

More La La La La La by Liberalproverbs18:2 that has nothing to do with the thread. Just more of the same talking points he uses to try to hijack every thread.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, I have to admit your observation was true and funny, but it was off topic. I am guilty of feeding the roll myself. He is such an idiot, it is hard to just let him rant his distractions.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"He is such an idiot"

"La La La La La "

"You did not refute my logic on numbers and still refuse to answer the questions. Why is that? Would it be detrimental to your argument if you did so?"
"La La La La La" -

"La La La La La "

guy faulkes said...

Is little Liberalproverbs18:2 upset because he hasn't been able to hijack this thread?

To bad.

Sarkazein said...

Open Carry

NewGuy said...

From my emails...


Shooting advice by Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, is a drill instructor (Thunder Ranch is a firearms training facility in Arizona). Here are a few of his observation on tactics, firearms, self defense and life as we know it in the civilized world.

Never let someone or thing that threatens you get inside arms length and never say I got a gun. If you feel you need to use deadly force for heaven’s sake let the first sound they hear be the safety clicking off and they shouldn't have time to hear anything after that if you are doing your job.

NewGuy said...

From my emails...Part II


The average response time of a 911 call is over 3 minutes....the response time of a .44 magnum is 1400 feet per second.'


The most important rule in a gunfight is: "Always win and cheat
If necessary."


"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."


"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, cause it's going to be empty."


"If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not loadin', you should be movin', if you're not movin', someone's gonna cut your head off and put it on a stick."


"When you reload in low light encounters, don't put your
Flashlight in your back pocket. If you light yourself up, you'll look like an angel or the tooth fairy and you're gonna be one of 'em pretty soon."

"Do something - It may be wrong, but do something."

"Shoot what's available, as long as it's available, until something else becomes available."

"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If you have a gun, what in the heck do you have to be paranoid about?"

"Don't shoot fast, unless you also shoot good."

"You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work, but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language."

"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it."

"You cannot save the planet but you may be able to save yourself and your family."

"Thunder Ranch will be here as long as you'll have us or until someone makes us go away, and either way, it will be exciting."

More Excellent Gun Wisdom........

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
Defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to
Fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers.
The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'

8. Beware of the man who only has one gun, because he probably knows how to use it very well.

'The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.

'G. K. Chesterton


A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson

.



"Life's tough... it's even tougher if you're stupid" , John Wayne