Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal

As the little girl in the 1980s flick, “Poltergeist,” said, “They’re back.” Now, after consciously maintaining a low profile the last two years, even though the Democratic Party maintained a majority in both houses of the Congress, the gun-control crowd is stirring. Yes, they’re back. And they’re feeling their oats.

Smartly, congressional benefactors for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s most notorious gun control organization, had lain low ; and gun control was but a minor issue in then-Sen. Obama’s campaign for the White House.

Hoping to increase the congressional majorities they gained in 2006 and to win the presidency in 2008, Democratic leaders wisely rebuffed efforts by their more radical members clamoring in the last Congress to push gun-control measures.

Now, after enhancing their majorities in the House and Senate, and fresh from grabbing the brass ring at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Democratic leaders in Washington and their anti-gun counterparts in the Brady Campaign and elsewhere are energized and actively starting to push their anti-gun agenda.

Apparently recognizing that Americans by a significant majority support the individual right to keep and bear arms — as definitively recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision last summer — a frontal assault on firearms ownership is not the Brady Campaign’s strategy. Instead, they and their compatriots have identified several more specific, easier-to-sell tactics to begin accomplishing their long-term objective to disarm America.

For example, playing off the fear understandably engendered by the pervasive and gory drug violence playing itself out in Mexico, the gun-control crowd is using that phenomenon to move for more gun control on our side of the border.

In the eyes of anti-firearms advocates like Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, Americans should feel guilty about, if not responsible for, drug gangs in Mexico shooting each other and corrupt government officials in perverse numbers — because some of the guns may have been purchased in the U.S.

Ignoring the fact that there are few places other than the U.S. from which anyone in Mexico might obtain a firearm (few are manufactured in Mexico or by the country’s southern neighbors), the gun control crowd is clamoring for “stronger” gun laws in the U.S. to stop the drug gang violence in Mexico.

Typically, of course, such arguments gloss over the fact that trafficking in firearms to Mexico (or any other country) by circumventing the stringent regulatory framework our government has maintained for many years is already illegal.

If the Obama administration — like its predecessor — was truly serious about stemming whatever the flow of firearms from the United States to Mexico might be (the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms claims 90 percent of guns used in shootings in Mexico come from the U.S., but it has offered no proof ) — it could do so easily by simply enforcing and more closely monitoring our immigration and existing firearms laws.

Closer to home, the gun control crowd achieved a victory in the courts last month by convincing a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to temporarily suspend a Bush administration rule allowing people to carry firearms to defend themselves on national park lands (so long as they complied with firearms laws of the state in which the federal land was located).

The old rule — which, thanks to the federal judge is the current rule once again — permitted hikers, campers and others to carry firearms, but only if the firearm was unloaded and not readily accessible. Recognizing the absurdity of such a rule, the Bush Interior Department amended it last December.

Never at a loss to find ways to deny the citizenry the ability to defend themselves, the Brady folks argued the Bush rule was invalid because the prior administration failed to study the environmental impact of such a minor rule change. The Brady campaign to “keep our parks safe” by playing the environmental card rather than attacking guns directly worked for now.

The gun-control crowd is pushing its radical agenda on these and many other fronts; and law-abiding Americans had better open their eyes to the clever ways in which they are plying their trade in the courts, the Congress and international forums. Much is at stake.

79 comments Add your comment

Redneck Convert

April 1st, 2009
7:42 am

Well, if these weenies want my anti-tank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self defense they can come up here to Simpsons Trailer Park and try and take them. I even plan to be buried with them–just in case things go wrong on the other side.

Have a good day everybody.

MChammer

April 1st, 2009
8:09 am

After witnessing a serious road rage incident yesterday at the I-75/Delk Rd. exit I can see both sides of this issue. You have a guy yelling and screaming at another driver and waving a gun at him while driving like a total fool, endangering everyone around him and you have to think that this nutcase definately shouldn’t possess a gun. On the other hand you think that because of unstable people like him everyone else needs one to defend against him. But I guess bottom line was yesterday, had two candidates for the psycho ward been raging with each other and both had guns, what would have happened then? Guys like that make a strong case for getting guns out of those hands whether it is his right or not to possess it. Maybe guns should be handle like driver’s licenses (he shouldn’t have one of those either the way he was behaving with that 3500lb deadly weapon).

Road Scholar

April 1st, 2009
8:22 am

Hey MChammer: the person being threatened could leave, thus avaoiding any confrontation and eliminating the likelyhood of something going wrong! The guy waving the gun obviously has a problem.

Dave Blackmon

April 1st, 2009
10:07 am

This makes perfect sense, the drug lords have a multi-billion dollar business to protect so they buy assault weapons from California (which has had an assault weapons ban for twenty years), which aren’t really assault weapons. Probably a lack of business education, they are unable to identify suppliers of true assualt weapons. There is also the US government available to augment the supply of military grade materials, ostensibly to Mexican government, that so easily appears in criminal hands.

DDS -- NRA Life Member

April 1st, 2009
10:14 am

The nutjobs of various persuasions have been with us since the dawn of time. The question therefore becomes: how much of our rights do you want us to give up because of their actions?

Davo

April 1st, 2009
10:23 am

Sure guns are bad…but what about kitchen knives? There’s people running around cutting their sisters heads off with kitchen knives! For the love of God, will the govt do nothing to address this threat?

Darren B

April 1st, 2009
10:24 am

Another way they may push gun control is through some type of economic reform. The federal government recently used the bailout measure as a lever to oust the CEO of GM. The Treasury wants authority to more closely regulate private business. I can see them using that as an excuse to regulate the firearms industry. It would start small, but expand over time until the goal is achieved. There doesn’t seem to be anything the current administration won’t attempt.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
10:30 am

The guy waving the gun in the road rage incident is in violation of existing laws, report him to the police. If you didn’t, then you’re part of the problem. It’s as easy as calling 911 and saying “Hey, there’s a guy at waving a gun threateningly at another motorist, please send a cop.” You should also do this for accidents and other problems you see. We can work within the framework of laws we have without resorting to more onerous legislation. I fail to see how passing more legislation will improve things considering the enforcement failures that happen now. After all, the VT shooter should never have been able to purchase a firearm legally.. except the system failed. I still think guns in this country are pointlessly over-hyped. Use that money to provide cancer treatment, mental healthcare, or low cost gymnasiums if you actually want to save the most lives. Targeting guns is irrational and ineffective.

Rich

April 1st, 2009
10:53 am

Went to many gun shows recently and was looking to buy assaut weapons, granades, rockest & rocket launchers just like the pukes in Washington District of Corruption says we have. Guess what, its all a pack of lies there were no such weapons here. Just another Obamanation plan of deception. I will give up my guns if Obama makes his body guards give up his.

Eleanor Rigby

April 1st, 2009
11:31 am

For all of you who want more gun control because of all the gun violence, the genie is out of the bottle. All of the criminals have firearms and are not afraid to use them. Give the law-abiding citizen the ability to protect himself. If you think stricter gun laws will prevent crime, you are a fool. Davo makes a very good point.

Lee

April 1st, 2009
11:44 am

A few observations:

The government still hasn’t learned it’s lesson about banning anything. All you do is create a black market for the item in question. Supply and demand – economics 101. After all, prohibition and the “war on drugs” has worked so well.

The same fellows who are savvy enough to bring illegal drugs into this country by the tractor-trailer load probably won’t have any problem obtaining contraband weapons.

The biggest manufacturer of the AK style “assault weapon” is China. Brazil also has a pretty healthy weapons manufacturing base. Let’s see, many of the drug cartels are located where??? That’s right, South America. Don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to draw a line between those two peices of the puzzle.

What has happened in Great Britain since they outlawed many types of firearms? Bueller? Ferris Bueller??

Times like this are when we really miss Bob Barr in Washington….

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
12:00 pm

I agree with some the things the government is trying to do. You say banning something doesn’t work, yet you are for the drug war, police soberity check points. You say that you don’t want those pesky regulations to dictate how you purchase your guns. Those pesky laws made a black market sure but it also made it harsher for those selling guns on the black market. These are the same policies that make you do a background check before you buy a gun. You knock a gun manufacturers for supporting training and safety locks for their weapons but yet applaud auto industry for supporting teenagers driving training programs. Which do you want the ability to go into any gun store and purchase any type of weapon just because you an American. It amazes me that we are in the same state where they require you to prove citenzenship in order to vote you yahoos don’t want no type of hinderance on your guns. Assinine just assinine.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
12:01 pm

Road Scholar what about the nut the went into the nursing home shooting everyone. I suppose they could leave to huh?

[...] Here’s a recent very well written article on how the anti’s plan on using the Mexican drug problem, and other tactics, to push their agenda. Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal | The Barr Code [...]

ConservativeAnchor

April 1st, 2009
12:05 pm

The 2nd Amendment was put created to protect the citizenry from tyranny by a government gone out of control. The Founding Fathers knew there was a potential that the government would overstep the bounds of the Constitution and infringe upon the citizens rights.

The guns are to protect you from the Liberals and especially Obozo.

MDinGA

April 1st, 2009
12:34 pm

Just a reminder….Hitler pushed gun control through in the 30’s, and look what happened after the German people were disarmed.

Steve

April 1st, 2009
12:38 pm

Jimbo seemed to give the correct solution. A driver on the road should have called 911 and reported the incident. Give them the guys license plate number. If multiple drivers are involved, give info on each car. For every driver you see waving that gun, there are many more in their car that carry one but don’t pull it out due to road rage. No need to go overboard and stop everyone from carrying one.
Would you ban all parents from their children’s sporting events just because a few parents that go start fights?

A dad

April 1st, 2009
12:41 pm

it never ceases to amaze me that liberals want to take guns away from the law-abiding citzens who lawfully purchase them in the first place. Why they refuse to acknowledge that the criminals whose gun-related violence they descry don’t purchase them legally, therefore gun control laws would be of no use. And it’s not like the US is the only company that makes guns. If criminals can’t get US-made fireamrs, they buy russian, german, etc. made and the result will still be the same. The criminals will have gins, and the general populace will be defenseless. I wonder if anyone will cite kellerman’s study on gun violence. I’m waiting….

EJ Moosa

April 1st, 2009
12:52 pm

In Germany, they rounded up the guns. If you had one, they shot you on sight. Not sure if we should expect anything different here when the orders to confiscate are issued.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2740.html

Here is a column I wrote about Just One Gun over a year ago. Nothing has changed but the location of the assault and the inability for anyone to defend themselves. Why is this such a hard lesson for liberals to grasp?

Gerald Barber

April 1st, 2009
1:07 pm

What you have to understand is GUNS dont kill people people kill people,you take away the gun from citizens and you have every bad guy in town taking what he wants when he want it ,and you cant stop him as far as the nursing home it was a gun free zone dont figure that some one would go there now would it ? wake up AMERICA the government is against you and there going after your rights one at a time.

"Charles", The Original

April 1st, 2009
1:11 pm

Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal

6:00 am April 1, 2009, by Bob Barr

As the little girl in the 1980s flick, “Poltergeist,” said, “They’re back.” Now, after consciously maintaining a low profile the last two years, even though the Democratic Party maintained a majority in both houses of the Congress, the gun-control crowd is stirring. Yes, they’re back. And they’re feeling their oats…

Bob Barr can’t trick me. It’s April 1st. April fool everybody. He almost got me too. Now let’s get back to the real world. The gun-control crowd knows that Americans, enlistment and commissioned officers are going to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. So the gun-control crowd can take our guns if they can pry them from our cold dead hands.

sully

April 1st, 2009
1:13 pm

No body’s gonna take my guns away from me. I bought them legally and until congress made some change in the constitution about my right to bear arms I will and continue to do so.

Songbird

April 1st, 2009
1:26 pm

I know plenty of unstable people who bought guns legally. At a recent visit to a friend, her son, who was in Afganistan and clearly has PTSD (he’s taking a lot of pain killers as well), was walking around with a handgun stuffed in the back of his pants. He has a lot of anger issues and is just the type of person who should not be walking around with a gun on him. He has a permit though. This is precisely the issue with guns in this country. The laws we have don’t keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be able to purchase them legally. I know you can’t keep someone from buying one illegally, but we really need to do a better job of not selling them and issuing permits for concealed carry to people who are unstable.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
1:26 pm

Aw look, that’s adorable, Gregg made a straw man!

Gregg, I’m actually against the war on drugs; just like I would’ve been against prohibition; just like I’m against measures that limit the civil rights of certain groups. I believe in reasonable controls and legislation on firearms and I’m a big proponent of the background check and programs like the gun coupon system in North Carolina. The problem is that the government doesn’t understand how to enact effectively legislation and when they luck into it they usually turn it into a revenue draw (like the gun coupon system in NC). The people who want strict gun control have an agenda based on either a poor understanding of statistics or an irrational fear of an inanimate object due to sheer ignorance. The assault weapon ban was useless. The Brady Bill gave us background checks, fine. The ammo serialization legislation that has materialized recently is poorly thought out and over complicated and the the Blair Holt bill is onerous and provides no real improvement over the system already in place. The only real benefit is that they make people feel better. Positive feelings don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. My guns live in a safe that weighs almost 1,000 pounds, a little more substantial than your trigger locks. So, while I’m sure it’s easier to build your straw man and roll with it, the reality is a lot more complicated.

Also, on the subject of assault weapons. I get asked from time to time why I “need” a military rifle. Let me lay it out for you. I live in a first world industrialized society. I drive a decent car, I live in a nice place, and I shop at pretty good stores. All of my “needs” are taken care of by my decent salary. The rest of my income that isn’t devoted to needs is devoted to something called “wants.” Wants are things I don’t need but I like to have. If you don’t live in a agrarian subsistence based culture you can buy wants. I want assault weapons and I can afford to have them, so I do. Shooting is my hobby and a lot of them have historical significance and I collect them. I’m not shooting them at you so it’s none of your business. You can’t drive a BMW, go to grad school, or live in a five bedroom house and then ask me about MY needs. I don’t really need anything but food, water, and shelter, neither do you.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
1:28 pm

It amazes me how your twisted minds work. they don’t want to ake guns away oh ye of little knowledge. the guns you have they do not want. They want to make sure those who get the go through the right process to get them. What kind of hunting can you do with an assualt rifle. What that what you need to kill a little frighten deer? There should be laws that makes it difficult to get a gun and stricter laws to punish those that sell them on the black market. If I brought a gun and sold it to someone who could not legally purchase one, if he should use that in a crime I should be charged as an accessory. What about the teen who stole 4 of his fathers gun while he was out of town and they had to shut down the school? What if your kids were in that school or Columbine, or the school in Arkansas. Wake up it’s not about taking guns away. The gun control group are the one that pushed for tougher laws for crimes committed with a firearm. Where were y’all hunting something that can’t hunt you back?

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
1:40 pm

Jimbo all of that sounds nice but you are correct as I do not live in a 5-bedroom home but a 6 in Larwenceville (almost Loganville) actually. I have my Masters’ from FIU (Florida International University). I probably have owned more weapons and fired more than you have (an assumption on my part due to I spent 10 years in the military). I have shot every thing from a grease gum to a 50 call. My argument is not to take away guns as you may propose however I understand the ease at which they are made available in certain communities. I have three kids and when they go to school I worry about some maniac mad for some unknown reason. I own my own business (which is for the most part cash based) so I am a potential target. I have a 38 in my business, a 9 in my car and yet I still worry ass to which nut wants me to make his day. Many people who carry guns talk bold and I will give them that because carrying gives one s sense of power. However until you have taken a life (not of an animal) you really have no clue. The 2nd ammendment was written in a different time and era, when we were called terrorist by England. I love what it stands for and was willing to die to protect all they stood for, however that does not mean we should not have control over something like just because I like it.

A dad

April 1st, 2009
1:40 pm

Gregg – obviously you are unware that there are already laws o nthe books dealing with the exact scenarios you laid out (other than the anti-hunting comment, can’t help you there PETA boy). Did you follow NYC’s lawsuits agains the gun dealers from the South re straw purchases. Fill out paperwork, wiating period, etc. But you expect perfect rules and regs in an imperfect world. Do guns do good in the hands of “normal” folk. Look at the statistics in places like Kennesaw were home-gun ownership was mandatory. What happened to the crime rate? You want to sensationalize random, sporadic incidents like the guys with road rage, of the PTSD case. balance those agains the millions of law-abiding gu owners who don’t have road rage or PTSD. How does banning guns from a national park (which is our land after all) equate to tougher laws for crimes committed with a gun. Every wonder whether the outcome of that vagrant murdering the woman on the Silver Comet Trial might have been different if she were armed? Course not. Liberals never rationalize, and if you want to frustrate a liberal, just present the facts that their emotional outlook on everything can’t process. Face facts, the anti-gun crown wants to destroy the 2d Amendment, take guns away from the law abiding citizenry, and that’s the truth. What’s next dude. The tired old argument about cars killing people so ban cars. If you can’t see what the real agenda is I fell sorry for you, cause one day you;re going to wake up and your beloved elected “leaders” will have enacted a law that effects you, but there won’t be anyone left to hear your outrage.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
1:42 pm

Thank you Songbird! I thought i was the only one that understood what this means. This is just common sense if you got them fine, but if your kids take them to school then you should be charged at least for negligence.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
1:42 pm

Oh Gregg, now Ad hominem?

They do want the guns I have. Cities like Washington DC, Chicago, and San Francisco have made that perfectly clear.

I don’t know anyone who uses an assault rifle to hunt. It’s a poor hunting weapon, we use them for target practice. We have deer rifles for hunting deer, oh but a deer rifle does pretty well since that’s what the guy used to shoot up that nursing home and one played a prominent role in the UT Austin shooting of 1966. Then, my legal genius, you talk about how laws should be stricter! Well it’s already a felony to use a gun in a crime and a felony to furnish a gun to a felon. It’s also a felony to possess a gun illegally. Should we kill them? What is your solution? The problem is with enforcement, not punishment. What about the teen that stole four guns? That was theft, the kid was a criminal, stealing is what criminals do. I would prefer that people keep all their guns in a safe that a kid can’t access, but people do and frankly there are plenty of children in this country that have a gun in their closet that don’t do anything of the sort. If one person does a thing should punish everyone who has the potential to do the same? NO. Let’s talk about school shootings. More people will die this week in car accidents than have been killed in these infamous school shootings since 1966 (CDC mortality statistics and a CNN article on infamous school shootings). Oh, except Chicago (which has broad bans on firearms) which had 100 kids die in shootings at public schools last year (according to the Chicago Tribune). How can you make something more strict than a total ban? Why have murders in DC never dropped below the 1976 level when they instituted their handgun ban? Banning handguns makes it pretty hard for anyone to get them and yet their murders stayed above the 1976 level despite a decline the city’s population (statistics from the CDC and Metropolitan DC police).

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
1:48 pm

A dad my point is that even without training if she was armed she would have been in more danger. Many of you have and used guns for years however I probably can take it away from you and use it on you if you give me the slightest opening. Being armed does not equate being safe. Being armed may make you feel safe but are you really safe. If you are so safe why do you lock your doors at night, you are armed, they may be armed but you have the advantage. You know the terrian far better than they do. leave them open and leave anote welcoming them. Again lets have this issue after you have used it and it takes you years not weeks or months to learn to cope with the act you committed. Then and then we can really blog abd talk about this.
Do you know what the leading reason is PTSD is? It’s not medication or something in the air, it is people haunting you everyday of your waking life. We don’t even daydream for the fear they are there too.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
1:50 pm

In my opinion that makes you worse than me Gregg. Assault weapons are used in about 2% of all gun crimes.. handguns are in the high 70’s so you pose a greater threat to society than I do. Your outrage is fine, but your understanding of the risk guns pose is flawed. Your kids are more likely to be killed in an alcohol related accident (or any accident really) than by a gun.

Guns are involved in homicides (including the cops) about 12 or 14,000 times in a year.. out of 300 million people or an average 2.2 million deaths. You could get into age and racial demographics and it becomes a lot more likely, but it doesn’t sound like your kids are in a bad neighborhood or going to risky school so they’re probably less likely than most to die from a gun related incident. Did you know that guns kill about 1,600 people a year in accidents? Out of over 100,000 accidental deaths a year.. More people drown.

I’m not saying your wrong, I’m just saying with your specific concerns you should probably find another soap box.

Joe

April 1st, 2009
1:56 pm

First of all, the reducio ad Hitlerum is evidence that you know that your argument is weak.

I have no problem with enforcing current gun laws and requiring a background check prior to the purchase of a gun. I also have no problem with an assault weapon ban.

And Gregg is correct about safety: having a gun does NOT make you more safe. If you have a concealed weapon and someone pulls a gun on you, your gun isn’t doing you any good, for example.

Anyway, if we worked on other policies in this country, then we won’t feel the need to have guns for “protection”.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
2:00 pm

Jimbo the point is not the “school shootings” as much as they are who is doing the shooting. I remember running around shooting people as a kid and somehow they all survived. Of course I had a toy gun then, but I did not realize the totality of the act until later in life Jimbo. Again I am not attacking gun ownership and you are very wrong if that is what you are getting. We have to have laws. I love to speed and have a car that can probably get close to 150 like it was nothing but for driver’s education and the law I do not. Will it work all of the time, I think there are only a very few things in life that works all the time.
Oh Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo have you never modified a AR-15 it is nothing but a M-16 in diguise. and you comment about them being terrible hunting weapons I tend to disagree with you. If they were why would they be used when the stakes are the highest. Just take a breath, aim, and touch the trigger as though you are not trying to discard your round peep up just in time to watch the explosion.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
2:07 pm

Jimbo in what locatin was Columbine, the school yard in Arkansas, or VT for that matter. You make 2.2 million deaths seem like nothing. As though that is a number to thumb your nose at. Tell me what if someone you loved was in that 2.2 million, then it wouldn’t be just a number anymore right. Then something needs to been done about crime right? My point is I don’t want to wait until it affects me to take action.
Joe, makes the most vaild point, I have seem dead men with guns in their hands Including and not limited to police officers. It seems pro-gun people would like to have the old west back complete with showdowns at high noon!

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
2:15 pm

Gregg, I’m not going to talk to you about the superiority of one weapon over another or why militaries use the weapons they use or what makes a weapons superior to another. I don’t have that kind of time. I have an AR15, I’m intimately familiar with the M16A2 and I know why they’re different from an AR10, an HK416, or an AK47. I know I CAN take a deer with one and why they’re better than a Remington 700 chambered in .270 Winchester (my deer cartridge of choice) for some combat applications.

Also, you’re supporting my argument Gregg. You CAN have a car that goes 150mph. No one is trying to ban them. Some people WILL go 150mph and they will risk the consequences. I’d much rather have that than a law that we may have no sports cars. I agree with the concept of training and the requirement to train, it’s one of the beefs I have with the Georgia CCW requirements we have now. Train train train the best you can as often as you can. Will it be enough? Not every time, even the best fail sometime, but it’s better than having nothing at all. You brought up school shootings and a maniac in your kids’ school, I was merely pointing out how that’s not a very high risk compared to everything else.

Also, why do I lock my doors if I have guns? Defense in depth! A high wall doesn’t work without a strong gate.

Also this argument isn’t necessarily about defense as much as it’s about ownership. I know plenty of people who have a lot of guns and no intention of every carrying one for protection. It’s just not their thing. Further, a gun is a burden, not an object of power. Anyone who tells you different doesn’t know what they’re in for.

EJ Moosa

April 1st, 2009
2:15 pm

Gregg,

How could Jennifer Ewing have been in “more danger”? She was murdered.

And if I perceive someone as a threat, they will not get close enough to disarm me. A threat will be dealt with before they get that close.

If enough of us are out there, those they prey upon us will not know which of us are armed and which are not, and that will act as a deterrent to some of them. For the rest, they run the risk of being DRT.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
2:27 pm

Gregg, life is risk, you’re just playing the numbers. 2.2 million is nothing compared to the 305 million people who will live or the 4 million people born in a year. Death is a natural state and we all must die. You assume far too much. I’ve buried a lot of my family and a number of friends over the years and it started when I was six. I’ve lost people to unnatural causes and disease and more than a few I lost well before their time. Losing someone to violence or similar circumstances I blame the perpetrator and not their tools.

As for the wild west comment, there are hundreds of thousands of people in Georgia alone with CCWs. There are 40-60 million households with firearms. I think you’re offbase when you assume that A: I’m off base by defending this right. or B: that I defend my other rights just as ferociously. You seems to revel in assumptions, stereotypes, and straw men.. but you have no real point. You’re mad and you want someone to do something about it and that may as well be the government.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
2:29 pm

don’t defend*

40-60million households nationally, not in Georgia.. that would be horrible having 60 million people in one state.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
2:33 pm

EJ Moosa one question have you ever discharged a weapon at anybody?
Jim, I understand the risk and chances. I also know the plane crashes happen less the automobile crashes but that doesn’t stop me from wondering if this is the one. I am glad the NTSB has so many regulation and mandates in place to make the air a safer place, do you agree Jimbo?

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
2:35 pm

And yet when a plane crashes it was usually in violation of those regulations.. do we need more regulations? Or should we better enforce the ones we have?

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
2:36 pm

Jimbo, you wrote:
You’re mad and you want someone to do something about it and that may as well be the government.
Who better whether it is the local, state or federal government I pay my taxes to. Can I rely on you Jimbo.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
2:40 pm

oh Jimbo I am not mad, we learn how to control that simple thing and use it to our advantage. Anger is for cowards to show they may do something a wasted energy if you ask me.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
2:48 pm

Gregg, I’m a hell of a lot more reliable than they are.

I’ll respect your rights a lot more diligently too.

Gregg

April 1st, 2009
2:53 pm

Jimbo I will see you later my boss (wife) is making me go pick up supplies and the kids. The life of a concerned father.
Enjoyed you feedback though Jim and I actually had to agree with some of your arguments.

Jimbo

April 1st, 2009
2:58 pm

It’s cool Gregg, part of the beauty of this nation is that we should be able to disagree. I only have a problem when someone wants to legislate their beliefs without clear benefit to the general populace or to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken.

Good luck with the wife and have a good one.

Barry

April 1st, 2009
3:09 pm

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the idiot we have in office acting as President are trying to form a Dictatorship in America! They are trying to run banks and the car industry and any other company that is stupid enough to fall victim by taking the bailout money! I guess the idiots in Washington will start taking knives, chainsaws, baseball bats and hockey sticks next. Quite simply, if you want to kill someone an idiot can find a way! Government is getting too big and getting involved in citizens lives way too much. I just can’t believe there are enough idiots to keep voting for Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd but wait I guess that’s how Obama got elected!

One
Big
A**
Mistake
America

EJ Moosa

April 1st, 2009
3:14 pm

Gregg,

No I haven’t. But I have had training and I am prepared to if warranted.

I have, however, had a gun drawn and aimed at me by a thug. One can choose to ignore the risks and accept the consequences. Or one can choose to be prepared and do what is necessary should the need ever arise. The choice is yours. But do not make the choice for me.

Despite your fears, many Americans use weapons to successfully protect themselves and those that are important to them.

Barry

April 1st, 2009
3:36 pm

As it stands now a thief/home envader has to ask themselves the question, “does the homeowner have a gun”? If the idiots in Washington had their way and outlawed guns it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out there would be a lot more burgularies, rapes, etc. What the hell would stop someone, i.e. thug, gang from coming into anyone’s home and raping your wife, kids and stealing anything they want right in front of you, if you have no defense? What if a lot of terrorists came into your community that were armed and just started killing people. Who’s going to stop them? Why do you not think other countries haven’t invaded America. The British tried but thanks to guns and our forefathers (many were just farmers) they kept America free! Everyone is so consumed thinking how society is so advanced that things like this just doesn’t happen in America or won’t happen in America. Well, were you suprised when terrorists took over airplanes with boxcutters and crashed them causing more casualties in a matter of minutes than Pearl Harbor? I for one want to have the ability to defend myself and my family! I want to have the ability to defend myself when I’m 60 years against a 26 year old gang member or thug that has broken into my home or tried to carjack me!

swampdog

April 1st, 2009
3:49 pm

Good afternoon, students.

In the USA each year, an average of 90,000 people die as a result of doctors’ mistakes. Should we pass laws limiting doctors or outlawing doctors? Or perhaps, “one doctor a month” laws? Of course not! We prefer to educate people as to the danger doctors present so we can make informed decisions. Duh! But wait! Liberals would rather take the “shotgun approach” and just, because it’s “easier”, outlaw guns or, make them, along with their ownwrs, politically incorrect. Here’s what others have said about our rights:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

“They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

“The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” -Thomas Jefferson.

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

I honestly don’t understand the mindset of liberals’ that they think we have somehow become “civilized” and the access to arms is no longer needed. Preposterous claims, indeed! But mankind has had to put up with hoplophobes for about as long as idiots and morons have roamed the earth. We should outlaw five gallon buckets because, “If it saves just one child, it will be worth it!” Swimming pools have taken the life of many a child, but teaching them to swim is preferable to having them drown to learn a lesson, eh? Lesson concluded for today, class. Have a good ‘un!

Red Foreman

April 1st, 2009
3:54 pm

“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”…since I own guns and the libtards dont, come and get-um…