And there is more…..
Some things just need no further explanation. My favorite part? “You’re a dumb-ass.”
44 Thoughts to “Let’s begin with guns: In your face in the lone star state”
Comments are closed.
Archives
Categories
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
All contents copyright Moonhowlings.net
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
Open carry is fighting words. It is provocative. It is a threat. Therefore all drivers have open season to run over anyone carrying a gun. Good luck with the “i’m a gun nut” demonstration guys. Don’t get too close to the crosswalk.
Hey-it’s Texas, home of Rick Perry, George Bush and Duh!
@Ed Myers
Really? Open season?
Funny…open carry has been legal in Virginia for decades…..nothing keeps happening.
Why are gun control guys like you so darned violent?
Why is it that its supposed to be okay for people like you to advocate violence?
2 officers, 3 others dead in Las Vegas shooting
By MICHELLE RINDELS and MARTIN GRIFFITH
1 hour ago
http://news.yahoo.com/2-officers-3-others-dead-las-vegas-shooting-232556307.html
Tell me again how the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, right cargo?
Apparently the good guys with the guns didn’t do so well, I am sorry to say. They were just sitting there having lunch.
@Starryflights
Funny….the bad guys committed suicide when cornered.
“exchanged gunfire with police before killing themselves, police said.”
So, tell me Starry….
what would have stopped them if there had been no good guys with guns…..?
Go ahead. We’re waiting. Or do you have something else inane to say?
One of them shot the other one. Both did not commit suicide if all the news reports are to be believed.
@cargo, Stand Your Ground. I’m trying to channel that gun rights activist philosophy to everyone else and when we do that we get violence. Funny how you don’t like violence directed at you but advocate gun owners to have the right to direct violence at everyone else. If you don’t want violence leave your guns at home. Using the threat of armed resistance to force a political agenda is a threat to democracy. If you can’t convince people with words and have to resort to a show of force to get your way, you might be a bully.
You can have as many guns as you want at home provided you keep the bullets inside your house. You can’t come out in public and threaten the rest of us, though. That isn’t part of the “well regulated” requirement of the 2A.
Yep…sound like it.
Running over innocent people sure sounds like defense to me.
Your caricature of self defense is the typical gun control bigot response and why any discussion of the subject is doomed to failure. Your projection of an idea of a “right to violence” is completely wrong and only people like you seem to think it exists. As is your strange idea that self defense is some sort of armed resistance. You sound VERY paranoid.
The right to keep and bear arms harms no one. Shooting is strictly regulated. And your ignorant attempt to bring in the “well regulated” phrase shows that you have no idea what that phrase means nor to whom it applies.
So only people with guns have the right to self defense?
The threat of imminently being able to shoot and kill someone is indeed a harm. It terrorizes a community. And we aren’t paranoid as it happens constantly in random places.
You can carry around guns with orange caps on the end of the barrel to show the gun is not operational and therefore not lethal. Then the demonstration would be peaceful.
@Cargo The discussion is doomed because gun rights activists are confrontational while carrying lethal force. That isn’t an open and free discussion. I could not say what I have said here to your face while you are holding a gun and showing as much anger and condescension.
The debate over the right to self defense – much less the founder’s expanded view that individual gun ownership was/is necessary to protect the liberty of the society, is as old as man. Notwithstanding that Cain killed Able with a rock (Jerimiah 17:19), more people are killed in domestic disputes with knives than all gun murders, or that the FBI is precluded by law from collecting or reporting on crimes prevented by individuals with guns at the scene (store owners and CC), gun violence like all violence is a problem of the heart and mind.
Of couse Ed, if we make guns illegal and restrict them to our homes noone will ever be shot rightfully or wrongfully ever again – at what price to your family or historically to liberty. But then the sggestion to make guns illegal does have a successful precedent — the war on drugs has been so very successful.
Random violence by gun is more terrorizing to a community than domestic violence. I can go inside my house to escape my neighbor’s use of a rock or a knife. I can’t as easily escape a gun.
I’m not suggesting outlawing guns. Restricting them in public places has always been the sensible approach to prevent injury to innocent people.
It is not morally acceptable to threaten someone with death (e.g. to point a gun at someone) to prevent theft.
There is no question that the Media hype up any and every incident of gun violence – even as law enforcement knows that gun violence is small in compariosn to other forms of attack. So yes, gun violence is on the community’s mind. You got me there and I’m sure there is no agenda associated with that – or that such media attention focuses on white communities in contrast to the nightly horrors going on in our urban and no so urban local cities.
Are you willing to restrict knives in public? In yesterday’s NV /Walmart incident a CC carry civilian died saving lives – shot from the rear by the wife has he challenged the husband/killer.
Not sure where I am on the immorality of defending things from theft with a gun or knife, but I would rather have the upper hand in the decision to defend my family or friends either way. I assume from your comment that you have no problem with pointing a gun at an armed robber. The only issue then is minutes when seconds count.
Yes, I am willing to restrict knives in public. If I see someone carrying a big ass knife, I am out of there, and calling the cops.
Same with machetes.
@Ed Myers
Of course you could. Because I have had people do so while I was open carrying. In fact, they’ve been downright abusive.
Other times, they’ve done so while I concealed.
And then others, when I was unarmed.
The refrain in each case was some sort of desire that I and people like me come to harm.
Funny how you’re statements are similar. Funny how you believe its not morally acceptable to threaten death against a robber…but you threaten death against those exercising a right. You seem to be a funny guy.
Hopefully you won’t have to rely on the tender mercies of said robber and his forbearance. You must be a mind reader to know that the criminal will not harm you or your loved ones.
And I’ve never shown anger. Condescension comes naturally when confronted by silly statements such as yours advocating the running down of innocent people.
I have not advocated running down “innocent people.” I simple applied the gun advocate’s “stand your ground” philosophy to a crowd of people holding guns to illustrate how it encourages violence and how the current concept of self defense is very skewed in favor of gun owners and their political activism lets them get away with provocative actions we would never tolerate of say, car owners.
I have no desire to see anyone come to harm….including an alleged robber. Because there is hardly any random violent crime most of my neighbors who have guns justify it based on a far-fetched street robbery scenario. Escalating a robbery into a violent confrontation by introducing a gun is not my idea of a civil society, no matter who brings the gun.
Without any other information about a person carrying a gun (e.g. a uniform) I see that person as a danger in the same way that I see someone driving aggressively as a danger to society.
@Moon-howler
Really? How long will the knife have to be before you call – or does it just have to look mean? Is my buck knife ok – it folds into its own holster.
Will you have the guts and decency to stay and let it be known that it was you who called the cops to file a predjudicial, discriminatory and politically charged complaint against the law abiding individual, knowing that the knife or open carry or CC was a legal act?
You know, I respect your view- don’t agree with it, but respect your view. I just resent the attempt to take away my constitutional rights to make you feel good about yourself – and pray that the day never comes when you wish somebody in the crowd was armed to possibly save your life – like the Walmart, post office or social security office or someplace.
Looks like the Nevada shooter was at the Bundy ranch a few weeks back. He also draped one of the officer’s bodies with a Gadsen flag. Great group of folks you tea baggers associate with.
Oh Stary, I quess you just had to miss or leave out the part of the report that the Bundy organizers asked these two to leave during the stand-off because of the intensity of their emotions and language. That would not play into your scenario though would it.
If we are talking Clive Bundy, you know, its really hard to sympathize with a bunch of vigilantes who stop traffic on a major interstate highway. Not sure where your statement is fitting in. Could you please elaborate?
3 inch blades are what schools use to differentiate pocket knives with no intent to harm versus an “assault” weapon.
@Moon-howler
I’ll do it.
The press is all over the idea that the shooters were FINALLY “right wing” and are trying a vague guilt by association.
They aren’t reporting that the Bundys chased them off because of being idiots.
As for stopping traffic on a highway, when did they do that?
@ed myers
You have advocating harming someone that is not putting you in danger. That is not stand your ground. It does not meet self defense law. Your spin will not get you out of your obvious statements.
As for escalating…if you wish to trust the good wishes of someone robbing you…be my guest.
As for knives…..schools…or at least, K-12 have a zero tolerance…no knife is allowed.
And the cop at my university didn’t really seem to care about the length of blade on the folder I showed him. He just wanted to make sure that I had one.
Bundy supposedly chased them off because Miller had a felony conviction and he had a gun.
If that is true, that proves a point I have been trying to make. Criminals will get guns regardless of felony conviction or not. People who have had felony convictions who want to lead decent lives, free of crime, can no longer defend themselves.
@Cargo I’d rather trust the good wishes of a robber who clearly only wants money (He/she can have my wallet or ipad) versus the unknown intentions of someone who feels compelled to constantly keep a gun by their side.
You are right though that until a threat is made, there is no imminent danger from someone possessing a gun and therefore no right to injure or kill them in self defense. I wish you would reciprocate regarding property crimes instead of hyping the minuscule probability that a property crime will turn into an act of violence and therefore you need to carry to a gun to potentially kill a thief. It is disappointing you can’t see that your position is the parallel of claiming that a minor risk of accidental discharge makes a gun owner a violent threat to everyone around them and therefore the public can kill him in self defense. In both cases the injury is not intentional but simply the result of reckless behavior and neither situation should be considered an opportunity for a lethal self defense response.
Regarding knives: Loudoun County makes a distinction in the severity of the offense for a student possessing a folding knife with blade less than 3 inches versus a larger one. The more serious knives result in expulsion versus lesser disciplinary actions.
The common law generally is very clear that one cannot use deadly force to prevent a property crime. If people are walking around carrying guns because they think they’re going to heroically stop a bank robbery or grocery store shoplifter, they’re badly informed and have no business with a weapon on their person. Deadly force is only resorted to to protect one’s own life or the life of another. Making the determination that such a situation is right in front of you can be difficult and highly subjective. So the law generally requires that the perception that life is imminently in danger be “reasonable” – i.e., a perception that can be verified as to its accuracy. What has become very confused lately is that some states have played with these common sense notions and left the test of the killer’s perception much more “subjective” than “objective.” If George Zimmerman sincerely believed his life was in danger, he could kill Trayvon Martin. It doesn’t really matter whether any of us, or a lot of us, or all of us, would have reached that same conclusion in that split second of confrontation.
If I get into an argument with someone who, unbeknownst to me, is packing a deadly weapon, I’m a dead man the instant he decides that he thinks his physical safety is at risk, no matter how flawed his thought process. If there are no witnesses, he’ll walk. I’m dead and can’t inform the situation or give my viewpoint. Even if there are witnesses, many jurisdictions will cut him a lot of slack if he can show that he decided that he was at physical risk. If he decides to shoot me because he detests my opinions or my hairstyle, he can say that he perceived a physical danger to himself. That might include that I outweighed him by 25 pounds, towered over him, or because I had my trusty cavalry sword that I carry at all times in its scabbard by my side. The gun makes it possible for a nervous, insecure person to dispense instant death without legal process. The trend in our laws (at least in many jurisdictions) has been to make it more, rather than less likely that he can do so without severe punishment. (BTW, one of the reasons I favor mandatory open carry and the elimination of concealed carry is so I and others can be sure not to get into a discussion with anyone who has a gun on their person). If they are people who are, by nature, suspicious, short-fused, unhappy, sleep-deprived, etc., etc., I don’t want to even start to engage with them on any level about anything. They have too much power, comparatively, over the situation and can do too much damage to me or others in an instant. There is simply no point (and considerable potential risk) in contact with such people.
None of this strikes me as “civilizing”, egalitarian, liberty-enhancing or culturally edifying, as has been recently claimed on another comment thread on this site. It strikes me as chaos and barbarism, both of which conditions are threats to liberty.
There have been 74 mass shootings since the Sandy Hook massacre.
This is unacceptable. We can’t prevent all of them but we can prevent some.
@Moon-howler
I hadn’t seen any info about him being a felon. Just bad attitude.
74? Can you show a link? I’d like to see how they figure that. I keep seeing different numbers.
@Scout
With the exception of your fears about those that carry lawfully, I agree with you. Concealed carry people are the LEAST likely to attack you. The statistics back that up.
I don’t take a lot of comfort from stats on this, Cargo. The open carries, I can avoid. The concealeds – how do I know? I’d avoid them if I could. I just don’t have enough information because the State keeps that information from me. If the State made them wear their insecurities on the outside where I can see them, I can just give them a wide berth.
@Scout
Well, I’m sorry that you are so fearful of your fellow man. Since there are also people that DON’T have concealed carry permits and carry….known as criminals….you must not get out of your house very much.
The odds of my encountering armed criminals are statistically quite low, Cargo. Arming myself to protect against them would be like arming myself to protect against a lightning strike (with which I’ve had more close encounters than I’ve had with armed criminals). I have no notion that when I go to the grocery store, I am forging out into a sea of armed criminals likely to accost me at every turn. Your neighborhood must be many, many, many times tougher than mine.
My husband was shopping at night about 25 years ago and he rounded the corner aisle to see some buckskinned dude carrying several long rifles. Mr. Howler headed the other way quickly. Soon a squadron of Prince William’s finest came roaring into the store and promptly arrested “Daniel Boone.”
@Scout
Not really, no. I was merely pointing out that based upon your statements, that you are concerned that someone might be carrying a concealed weapon and you desire to know for certain. The criminal class will always carry concealed…thus you cannot ever no for certain… and since you wish to avoid them…. you can’t really go anywhere.
What is a fast way to identify the good guy with a gun from the bad? seconds count. Anyone with a gun not in a hunting situation, shooting range, or in uniform is a bad guy intent on harm. Leave it up to those who want to carry a gun to figure out how overcome the default message that carrying a gun presents: the owner is out and about looking to kill some one.
@Ed Myers
Easy.
The bad guy is shooting at you.
I’m sorry that you are so paranoid that you think that millions of your fellow Americans are so evil.
For an example of a robust gun culture and promotion of responsible gun handling.
http://youtu.be/JGslzXxDhEU
I have no idea why it embedded. I merely used the share choice from Youtube, not the embed.
Its a quirk of wordpress now. I don’t know how to fix it. It really doesn’t matter.
Deal with it. The presence of a gun in public is an evil intent message. If that is not the message you want to project then leave the gun at home or look at ways to counteract the anti-social message that carrying a weapon entails. Carrying a weapon projects that one fears that violent crime is likely. Since that isn’t true, the gun owner is mildly delusional. I don’t want to be around people who cling to a false reality about the threat level others pose that they need a gun to feel safe. The opportunity to misinterpret my actions and feed the delusion that I am a threat ends badly….I’m dead and you smear me by claiming I was attacking you to justify the shooting.
Carrying a gun is a threat to civil society.
@Ed Myers
No…..Its YOUR interpretation of intent. YOU are projecting intent.
Millions carry everyday. If you don’t want to be around them….stay home.
I don’t think we can say that everyone who doesn’t want to be around gun slingers has to stay home. I don’t think their rights trump mine. I refuse to be around open carry. I think they are exhibiting bad judgement. Who wants someone who exercises bad judgement to have a gun around them.
Remember, I am the ballsy lady who used to make a friend check his guns in with her when he entered her house. He got them back when he left.
@Moon-howler
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it specifically of Ed Myers because he is irrational and has stated paranoid suspicions.
What did you do when you were at a restaurant that served alcohol? Open carry was MANDATORY. They were not allowed to carry concealed. Ed’s against ANY kind of carry.
Most restaurants didn’t allow guns in there at all. Most sane people don’t think alcohol and guns (or knives) are a good mix. I have known a lot of drunks and a lot of good ole boys in my day. I would agree. I am reminded of how many hunters get liquored up and either shoot themselves or someone else. That’s not even being pissed off.
That is Ed’s right to be against carry or guns all together. It is your right to believe you should be able to own an IED. Doesn’t mean either situation is really going to happen.
The video clip provided by Cargo was pretty disconcerting. Apparently this guy believes that the disadvantage of carrying openly is that “people know who you are and what your intent is” [quoting from memory something that he says several times in various formulations]. Conversely, he advises that if you carry concealed, people don’t know your intent, your purpose or who you are. And he says this in a way that makes it seem that he thinks the latter approach is an advantage.
The closest he comes to providing a reason to carry concealed (other than the repeated point that seems to be his primary concern) is the issue of avoiding having your gun snatched away by bad guys (they practice this in prisons, he advises). It strikes me that another really effective way of avoiding bad people grabbing away your weapon is not to carry one out and about.