Already Outlawed

DaveyNC 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Shhhh! We have to stop trying to correct them. If they figure out the difference, they will try to ban the guns we actually have.

AFCHIEF 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Sorry Kyle don't lump all republicans in this idiotic gun plan. Taking guns out of law abiding citizens is not the answer

alladat1 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Semi or auto - if you need a 30 round clip to take out Bambi you should find yourself another hobby.

skylinefirepest 3 months, 2 weeks ago

alladat1, haven't you been reading these comments? Have you no education concerning the 2nd Amendment? Don't you know that the 2nd has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting Bambi?? Pitiful comment there, dude ( or dudette ). Jimmy, was there a point to your comment? You're simply another idiot with literally no knowledge of firearms or the 2nd.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

skyline - I assume that you have no idea what's in SOPA and why it's utterly irrelevant to the current debate. No surprise there, since the second amendment is not about hunting Bambi. It's about hunting escaped slaves. I guess they're still hiding out there.

alladat1 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Skydope - I'm just following up on this part of Mr. Moore's statement: "These certain guns included weapons that resembled military-style firearms but had the same functionality as a hunting rifle." How many hunters need 30 round clips?

alladat1 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Skymoron - Where did I mention anything about taking guns away? It's the ability to fire 30 shots before reloading.

RmeMP 3 months, 2 weeks ago

jimheim - can you please show us where the 2nd amendment "is about hunting escaped slaves", as you say it is?

noneofdat - have you ever been wild hog hunting? when a pack of 20 or 25 feral pigs come in and you try to drop as many as you can before they all take off? didn't think so...

to answer your question: a lot of hunters use 30 round MAGAZINES, not clips smart guy, even though hunting has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment :)

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey, pest, when you going to own up to lying about me calling semi-automatic rifles"weapons of mass destruction"?

alladat1 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Rme - I would gladly exchange you're right to shoot 25 pigs in exchange to help protect a class of 25 kids. Maybe we could count on you to shoot some lunatic when he has to take time to reload.

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I detect hostility. And to avoid further controversy, I think JimHeim should re-write the Second Amendment for us. We trust his judgment, especially the "escaped slaves" part. Our Founders should have never included that in the first place. We can all agree to that. So please JimHeim, help us all by writing a better Second Amendment. We trust you to do your best in telling us which weapons we can keep. And please be specific about which weapons we may use to hunt down escaped slaves. All of us, and I mean all of us, await your insightful response. Cheers!

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Rme - As I've repeatedly noted, these remarks by the founders are well documented. Please read the minutes of the Virginia constitutional convention, June 16, 1788. You'll find Patrick Henry making the case.

Those guys were too wordy to even give a useful excerpt. Read the whole thing.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

When we stop worrying about what we CALL a firearm and start concentrating on what it actually DOES, we can start comming together to begin a dialog that might help reduce the carnage facilitated by firearms in this country. The weapon of choice for most mass murderers is the weapon that is capable of firing the most number of bullets in the shortest period of time. You can call those weapons whatever you want, it is totally irrelevant to those of us who simply want to reduce the body count when someone goes berserk. Skylinefirepest cannot seem to grasp this concept. He seems to think that if only we understand how a weapon works or what the 2nd amendment means, fewer people would be killed during a mass shooting. When RmeMP states that large capacity ammunition magazines are required to annihilate large numbers of feral pigs, we see where his priority lies. He sees what such a weapon can do to 26 people and has decided that killing pigs takes precedence

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher - As the second amendment is a relic of our distant past, when we had no standing arming or national guard (which we do now thanks to the Dick Act), or slaves to catch, we have no need of a citizen militia, I would delete it in its entirety.

We are perfectly capable of governing ourselves and I see no plausible scenario in which all guns would be banned in this nation.

They are not coming for your guns. Get over it.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

That was supposed to read 'standing army.' Ah well...

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Bt the way - If the AWB doesn't really do anything, why such a fierce fight against its renewal?

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Amazing. The total disdain for our Constitution and Amendments!! Get it Amended again if you hate it in its present form so badly!!

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

JimHeim-- Since the Second Amendment "...is a relic of our distant past," can you tell us which other Amendments are also "relics," and how you would re-write the Second Amendment? We'd like to know. Cheers!

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher - As the second amendment is a relic of our distant past,

Really Jim?? Really?

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon - Yes, really. Read what the founders said about why they put that in the Constitution. Then you'll understand. It's not about hunting or personal protection. Never was, because they knew it wasn't needed.

And they sure as hell did not put the second amendment into the Bill of Rights to facilitate the destruction of the nation they were creating.

Your side keeps skating right past the 'well-regulated militia' part is if it has no meaning. It sure does. It was the whole point.

As always, you're free to prove me wrong. Get me a quote from anyone involved in the creation or adoption that says otherwise.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher, if you decide to read posts here carefully you'll see statements like, 'I would delete it in its entirety.' I would hope that was plain enough.

It's simply not needed. There has never been any chance that guns would be outlawed in this country. Where have you been?

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, how many would be sufficient? I could probably find many. They absolutely had overthrow on ANY govt that was oppressing our citizens.....FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC!!!

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"Where have you been?" Reading your posts here. Cheers!

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, here is a quote from Geo Washington that is widely known. It is the first one l came to.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

Jim, how many do you really want? I can find possibly a hundred this afternoon. This is why none of the left uses quotes from our founding fathers, it negates your total argument.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

But Jim, you are absolutely correct in that the 2nd Amendment had NOTHING to do with hunting.

RmeMP 3 months, 2 weeks ago

brother yukon, you are sadly wasting your time with facts; those liberals like noneofdat, heim, and jim simply will not accept them.

want the 30 round magazines that are in my possession? COME AND GET THEM!

"MOLON LABE!!!"

The_AnonymusProfit 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Ok i didnt think jimheim could get any more idiotic. Guess i was wrong.

emb6683 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The writer is absolutely correct; however his point is also absolutley irrevelant. A machine that makes copies is a Xerox, even if it is made by Ricoh. A tissue is a Kleenex, even if it is a Scott brand.

A semi-automatic rifle, with a black plastic stock, a short barrel and a pistol grip that resembles an M-4, is an assault weapon, even though it not an automatic weapon that has been banned for many years.

Even the original federal Assault Weapons Ban law applied to these semi-automatic weapons, not true assault rifles.

But it doesn't matter. Like Xerox and Kleenex, anythnig that looks like a military style assault rifle is an assault weapon to 99 % + of the population.

So you should find a different argument.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

All those fine quotes are interesting but irrelevant. They were made at a time when the opinion of our leaders was that a standing army is a bad idea. Why do you think that they hobbled the army in the Constitution, while giving free rein to the navy?

Without an army, how would we defend ourselves? They decided on well regulated militias among the states. They even required most (white) males to purchase rifles and ammunition and report for muster.

It's all in the transcripts of the debates of the time.

Well now we have a standing army and all 50 states have National Guard units. Exactly why would we still need civilian militias? The second amendment is obsolete and getting us killed. Since 911 when about 3,000 died in a terrorist attack, 270,000 Americans have died from gunshots. And what have we done to stop it?

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

wdd - Here's a link. Read and learn:

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june16.html

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

wdd - In case there are just too many words there, here's a quote from Patrick Henry:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

Could it be plainer?

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

A Florida man armed with an weapon that had once been banned under federal law forced his wife to watch as he strangled one of his sons and then shot a second before turning a gun on himself.

No comment.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, you are "all over the place" on this. You asked me for A quote from the founders. ONE quote, l gave you two and can give you a hundred. They are from Virginians, none the less, and now you move the goalpost, or better yet, you start playing hockey!! It is very easy for me to see from Fairbanks why the Republicans have such a strong presence in Moore county.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The simple fact that the framers of the constitution did not believe all people were created equal is enough for me to conclude they were not infalable and their words and actions were not guided by some deity. In their estimation, women and blacks were inferior to white men. While much of what they desired for their new country was well intended and needed, they made mistakes because they were human. We must look at our constitution as a living document that, from time to time, needs to be up-dated to reflect the current times. Christians do the same thing with their bible, why would we not want to do so with the constitution? I believe that the 2nd amendment was a poorly written clause that reflected their thoughts in the late 1700's. Relative to the subject matter addressed by the 2nd amendment, nothing is the same as it was then and so I must agree with Mr. Heim that it is outdated. I think Mr. Heim proposes that it be eliminated only because if it were to be re-written, it would become a political statement rather than a well thought out document.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

JimRussell44, Then, by all means, start a movement to have it removed. That is perfectly fine and the way that our country is ran. It is not a difficult process, that l am sure you are familiar with and how it works. Just do it. That is the patriotic way to change the direction of our nation, not Presidential decree.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukonjohn, would you join me in that endeavor or do you see no problem in the way it's written and interpreted?

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, I would absolutely join you in starting that movement, if when it is over and done with, your side in this issue will take the verdict and live with it. This has no chance of passing muster as it needs to, which is why l would prefer that ya'll get it done. Our nation needs, and will remain armed for our lifetimes l feel sure. If it were to be successful, l would quietly move to somewhere else.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon - Silly me; I expected a relevant quote. How is it possible that you constitutional experts don't even know the history of the document? It's no secret that the founders feared a standing army and sought to prevent it through the limitations on a army they put in the constitution. In that light, they saw it as essential to have a citizen militia. Still with me?

Now that we have a big honking standing army that is beyond congress' control, and thanks to the Dick Act, National Guards in every state, the situation has changed. The need for a well regulated militia is now gone. It's a simple as that.

The second amendment was written for a specific time and situation - one that no longer exists and hasn't for over a hundred years.

Get me some quotes that address a nation with a standing army and the need to arm the citizenry to the teeth. That would be amazing.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

A recent news item caught my attention because it should serve as the perfect example of the word "Ironic". It also hit the trifecta of irony. A former Marine, using a semi-automatic pistol, shot and killed a former Navy Seal and author of "American Sniper - The Most Lethal Sniper In U.S. Military History". . In his book, Chris Kyle detailed his 150 plus kills as a sniper from 1999 to 2009. This news item relates how a great American hero, kills another great American hero using a third great American icon, the semi-automatic firearm. It also substantiates the old adage, Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword".The former Marine also killed a man with Kyle. A further irony to the story: The shooting took place at a shooting range and all three were armed. I point this out for the benefit of skylinefirepest, who claims that everyone should be armed for self defense and who likes to point out that I'm a fool for not having guns to protect myself and my family from those with guns who want to do me harm. I'll repeat: Chris Kyle, who has more than 150 "kills" to his credit and who was armed at the time, was shot and killed by a former Marine using a semi-automatic weapon.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukonjohn, you say that "this would have no chance of passing", yet we have not discussed ANYTHING relative to what the wording of any proposed change to the 2nd amendment might be. Perhaps reading that sentence again will help you understand how frustrating it is to have a reasonable discussion on this subject. Your immediate assumption is that any change will result in your rights to own or use "arms" being taken from you. You are already making reservations for transport to "somewhere else" without knowing or contributing anything to the discussion. I can't speak for everyone who would like to see the 2nd amendment up-dated, but I can assure you that most of us don't want to take away your right to own or use a firearm. Our goal is to simply examine every possible way to reduce the carnage in this country that is aided by firearms that fire large quantities of bullets in a short amount of time.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

And which of those fine quotes suggested that the reason for allowing the people to be armed was for the purpose of overthrowing the government? I sure don't see it.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I guess you did not read the quote from Geo Washington. He said we should be armed to protect our independence from any that might try and take it from us, including our own govt. Did you not read that? Did l misquote it? JimH I can see how there is nothing that will satisfy your desire to take away the 2nd Amendment, and that is most certainly your right, but as far as l am concerned, taking away that right removes all protections for every other right.

JimRussell44, I truly believe that ANY change in the 2nd Amendment would never pass muster in but a few states. It needs 3/4 of them to pass, and no way would it get that, no matter the language.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon - Unless I am mistaken, Gen Washington was not involved with the ratification of the constitution or the Bill of Rights. He was a foe of a standing army.

Following Shay's Rebellion, Gen Washington wrote this: "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."

Does that sound like someone who wants the masses armed to engage in rebellion?

I am more interested in the opinions of those charged with deliberating this issue. Which of them wanted the populous to have the means of overthrowing the government they were creating?

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

JimRussell44-- You are an honest and reasonable guy who has been placed in a difficult situation through no fault of your own. As I've said several times here, almost all liberals will claim that their goal is not to ban all guns, but if you gave them a couple of beers, most would admit that that is their ultimate goal. Your local Democrat chairman has posted here that he believes the Second Amendment is a "relic" which should be deleted in its entirety (I give him credit for saying aloud what most liberals believe but try to conceal). With this comes a certain level of distrust from conservatives and libertarians whenever a liberal claims he/she simply wants to have a "discussion" about how to limit deaths from guns. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having that discussion with you, because you are honest about your intended goals. Unfortunately, most other liberals are not. Thus, it seems to me that any discussion must first acknowledge that the Second Amendment grants to individuals the right to possess firearms. Anything short of that would, in my view, be a non-starter. Assuming we pass that hurdle, then the discussion could turn to reasonable regulations of certain firearms, and a prohibition against felons and the mentally ill having any access to weapons. In the end, though, I think Yukon is correct: whatever language you craft would be viewed with such suspicion by the folks on my side (who actually listen to what liberals say they believe) that any amendment process would be doomed from the outset for lack of requisite support in the House, Senate, and the States. But I still believe discussion by reasonable folks on this issue is worth the effort. Cheers!

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Goodevening Thatcher!! Hope your day has been a good one. We had about 3 inches of snow on the almost 2 ft we have, and it is nice and warm!! (for us) I think that there is no need to beat our heads against the wall any longer on the gun issue. I, for one, am done. The only way that liberals can try and disarm our country is through Amendment, and that will not happen. There is no reason to debate when both sides are set in concrete. Best Wishes!!!

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon! It's still cold and sunny here...way too cold for me. The way I see it, there are honest liberals like JimRussell44, who do not want to ban guns. Then there are honest liberals like JimHeim who do want to ban guns. In the middle are dishonest liberals who claim they don't want to ban guns but cannot be honest like JimHeim...because they really do want to ban guns. If there were more honest liberals like JimRussell44, we could perhaps make some progress. Unfortunately, it appears that most liberals (including many who post here) are simply dishonest. There can be no discussion with those folks. Sad, but true. Stay warm up there you beast! Cheers!

skylinefirepest 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Dusty...what comment on what thread are you talking about. I'm not aware of having lied about you so if you are talking smack as you usually do, you'll not get any satisfaction from this conservative.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher, I think there are many liberals who think as I do (even though I don't consider myself a liberal). And I also believe there are many conservatives who are willing to discuss reasonable regulation of certain firearms. It is a very vocal minority on both sides that seem to be the stumbling block. It's a sad day when we Americans can't communicate , much less trust each other. I've often heard people say this country would implode from within rather than be conquered by a foreign power. We are almost there. The extreme paranoia over the belief that one side is saying one thing but will "probably" do the opposite should have this country in a civil war shortly.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

what comment on what thread are you talking about. I'm not aware of having lied about you so if you are talking smack as you usually do, you'll not get any satisfaction from this conservative.

Pay Our Debts

Where you claimed I "maintained the fallacy that a semi-auto rifle is a weapon of mass destruction." while calling me a liar. That post was deleted as libelous.

In actuality, it was JimRussell44 who called a semi-auto a weapon of mass destruction in this thread:

System Needed

In that thread, I also posted the NC General Statues definition of weapon of mass death and destruction, which did not include semi-autos. You then stated to JimRussell: Go back and read Dusty's comment on wmd.

So not only did I not call semi-automatic weapons, "weapons of mass destruction", you knew very well I didn't. I don't give a damn about satisfaction from you, pest, but I do think everyone needs to know what a liar you are.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Question: why can't conservatives like pest, thatcher, et. al, have a conversation without lying and misrepresenting what people have said? Is it because they know their arguments are weak so they have to make up straw men to attack?

JD 3 months, 1 week ago

Wow wdd, That's a lot of copy paste. And the picture of your bedroom is a bit depressing, try and scrounge some couch change and spring for a lamp. It might help your outlook to not live like a troll in a hole.

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

I see no plausible scenario where the private ownership of guns would be banned if the second amendment were to be eliminated. But it would be probable that laws balancing the needs of child killers with the rest of us would be enacted. I don't see a downside.

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

Okay, you seem to have decided (absent the slightest support from the framers of the constitution), that people need arms to overthrow tyrannical governments. Show me the examples of how that has been done with legally obtained weapons. I imagine it's quite a long list to justify the carnage we must suffer for the opportunity.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago

Show me the examples of how that has been done with legally obtained weapons.

The key word there being "legally obtained."

The conservative position seems to be that we need to just ignore the role of firearms in child killings so we can more easily commit treason if we don't like the way an election went.

I think "gun rights advocates" are more aptly characterized as "wannabe insurrectionists."

Or maybe "WANNABE WOLVERINES!"

dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago

A Wannabe Wolverine admits that he doesn't follow the gun laws already in place:

Faison admits to keeping firearms in his vehicle while in Nashville. “I’m not ashamed of it. I’ll tell anybody that,” he says. “I’ll tell the highway patrol. Listen, that’s just part of life.” Faison, however, would still be breaking the law even if his legislation passes, at least as written now. While the Cocke County representative says he’s “carried a gun all my life.” He says he’s never sent in the paperwork for his handgun permit. “One day I’ll probably get caught if I don’t get a permit, and I’ll get in trouble,” he says.

Now he says "he misspoke."

Sure.

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

I think it's fair to say that people don't make laws, guns do.

skylinefirepest 3 months, 1 week ago

Dusty, wow, you refer me back to a non-existent comment and call me a liar! You really are some piece of work. I'm not aware of any of my comments being deleted so I'll just have to take your "word" for it...which I'm not really inclined to do as regards YOUR reputation. Sorry dude, you get no apology from me for any comments of mine that you have plucked out of nowhere!!

skylinefirepest 3 months, 1 week ago

Dusty, wow, you refer me back to a non-existent comment and call me a liar! You really are some piece of work. I was not aware that any of my comments had been deleted...if so I would have called the Pilot to complain! Being a month ago not much point now. But the comment not being there certainly doesn't prove any "lie" on my part and I'm not inclined to take your word for it. And if you want to start throwing your "lawyer credentials" around you can kiss my ( oops, almost said something the Pilot would delete...but you get the idea.) Funny how when someone apparently backs you into a corner you start threatening "legal action" because you have somehow been slimed. Amazing! Sort of makes you out to be a coward, doesn't it??

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

Police say a 75-year-old man in Dallas is being charged with Capital Murder after he allegedly shot and killed two neighbors because they had dumped dog feces on his porch. According to The Dallas Morning News, Chung Kim had repeatedly complained to management at Sable Ridge Apartments that Michelle Jackson and Jamie Stafford, who lived above him, had dumped dog feces on his porch and allowed their dog, Selena, to urinate on the upstairs balcony which dripped down to his patio. Tension finally boiled over on Monday when Kim was on his patio and shot 31-year-old Jackson multiple times as she stood on the patio above him, police said. He then reportedly went upstairs and shot Stafford, who was also 31, as he was trying to escape. After Stafford fell from the second floor, Kim is accused of going back downstairs and shooting him again.

The second amendment as the framers intended.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago

skylinefirepest 3 hours, 7 minutes ago I was not aware that any of my comments had been deleted...if so I would have called the Pilot to complain! Being a month ago not much point now.

skylinefirepest 3 days, 2 hours ago This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Busted again. Hilarious. I'll be posting this on your wall for future reference.

And tell me who's the coward again, but only when you have the stones to do it under your own name.

Courseaire 3 months, 1 week ago

Kim was completely justified by exercising his Constitutional rights: Constitution insures domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare. It's obvious that the couple violated his rights. Of course you'll have those people that will say the couple was exercising their right of free speech with their doggy's doo-doo.

skylinefirepest 3 months, 1 week ago

Dusty, once again you have shot off at the mouth...I stopped by your office one day, identified myself to your receptionist and asked to see you...you were too busy so don't even try to give me a bunch of crap about not knowing who I am. Even your parents know me!! You are correct in that I mis-read the days BUT that does NOT make me a liar. As you, being a serious lawyer type, should well know. So what is it Pilot censors??? What did I say that was in violation of any agreement or good taste?? Got an answer Mr. Nagy?? For that matter, do you remember, Dusty? I don't.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago

You are correct in that I mis-read the days BUT that does NOT make me a liar.

You also lied about what I said about assault weapons, and added a gratuitous and libelous aside about my integrity in my profession, which caused your comment to be deleted. I saved the original if you really want me to repeat it and show you to be an even bigger liar.

That's what makes you a liar. And it's been proven. All you or anyone else has to do is read the threads I've referenced to recognize that you lied about what I said when you claimed I said semi-automatic weapons were "weapons of mass destruction." In fact, I did exactly the opposite, and you knew it, because you referred JimRussell44 to my answer.

I don't expect you to own up to your lie, That's not the conservative way. The conservative response to getting caught lying is to try and brazen it out and either pretend they never said what they said, or just blithely repeat the lie over and over. Doesn't work real well, but it's all you've got, apparently.

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

Courseaire - It used to be that more than just an assertion was required before execution. I guess unsubstantiated claims are enough now. Being a gun owner is now truly a life-and-death issue.

Thatcher 3 months, 1 week ago

"Being a gun owner is now truly a life-and-death issue." Uh, when has being a gun owner not been a life or death issue? Ever hear of the Hatfields and McCoys? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57561315/hatfields-and-mccoys-new-evidence-in-historic-feud/. My point is this, JimHeim: you pick the most obscure, most isolated cases, and try to use them to advance your argument that guns should be banned. But you go further, to suggest (as you did in your last post) that isolated and bizarre gun violence is something new and unheard of...which (to you) means we must now ban guns. Of course, stories of folks protecting themselves and their families with guns are of no interest to you (since they don't fit your agenda), despite the fact that these stories dwarf the "dog urinates off 2nd floor deck" resulting in shooting story that you cite. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm. I really thought that since you think deficits and the debt don't matter, neither do guns. And for what it's worth, Lizzie Borden supposedly killed her parents with a hatchet in 1892, which resulted in the banning of hatchets throughout the world (joke)...even though no one claimed that her parents urinated off the 2nd floor deck. Cheers!

LSM 3 months, 1 week ago

@Thatcher:

Did you by any chance see the slideshow of new President Obama photoshopped pictures on National Review Online. And they say Conservatives have no sense of humor.

Thatcher 3 months, 1 week ago

LSM-- I did indeed! And thanks for the post. Here it is: http://www.nationalreview.com/. Too funny! Cheers!

dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago

LSM: I give them props for the Magnificent Seven and History of the World references, and the "One does not simply" meme at the end.

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

Thatcher - Since 23 or more family members die for each one saved by a gun, I'd call those lousy odds. but I'm not a gun worshipper.

Thatcher 3 months, 1 week ago

"(B)ut I'm not a gun worshipper." And apparently, you are not a fact worshipper either. Cheers!

skylinefirepest 3 months, 1 week ago

Yes, Dusty, by all means, if you still have it repeat it for my edification.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago

skylinefirepest http://www.thepilot.com/marketplace/users/skylinefirepest/22 hours, 29 minutes ago [this is when the post was saved] http://www.thepilot.com/news/2013/feb/01/pay-our-debts/#c106706 And in another comment Lawyer Dusty has maintained the fallacy that a semi-auto rifle is a weapon of mass destruction. It is an out and out lie and Dusty knows it is, so what are we to believe about Lawyer Dusty's honesty???*

Do you deny saying it, or are you going to keep lying? Or were you just blackout drunk at the time?

JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago

Skylinefirepest, yes, it was me, not Dusty that called semi-automatic firearms "weapons of mass destruction". I maintain that position based on the following: 1) "mass", the meaning of this word includes: "a considerable assemblage, number or quantity". 2) "destruction", the meaning of this word includes "annihilation". Therefore, a semi-automatic firearm with a high capacity ammunition magazine capable of "annihilating" large "numbers" of people in a short period of time would fit the description of a "weapon of mass destruction". Feel free to dispute this statement with any bits of facts you can come up with.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago

Ergo, when Pest claims I maintained the fallacy that a semi-auto rifle is a weapon of mass destruction. he was out and out lying.

I do not, and never have, claimed a semi-automatic weapon is a WMD, sorry. It doesn't fit the legal definition, and that's what I go by.

So,...will pest evade? Will he whine about how mean I'm being? Will he try to change the subject? Will he still claim he doesn't remember saying what he said, before it got deleted as libelous?

Stay tuned...

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

WDD - The latter two involved machine guns not available to your well regulated militia.

As for the first, what's your point? Did a citizen militia put down the rebellion (as the framers envisioned) or was it police and or military action do the job?

Remember that the second amendment was written to protect the government from rebellion. It was not intended to allow the citizenry to rebel against the authorities. Have you not read the debates surrounding the adoption of the second amendment?

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

JimRussell44 - In a country where a smoke grenade is a 'weapon of mass destruction' I don't think putting an assault rifle in that category is in any way a stretch.

JimHeim 3 months, 1 week ago

NEWINGTON, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut mother has posted bail after being charged with pulling a gun and threatening another woman at a Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurant. Police say 30-year-old Tawana Bourne brandished a .380-caliber handgun and chambered a round during an argument at the children’s game and pizza restaurant in Newington on Monday night. Police say both women were at the restaurant with their children. Restaurant workers called police, who charged Bourne with reckless endangerment, risk of injury to children, threatening and breach of peace. She was freed after posting $50,000 bail and was ordered to appear in New Britain Superior Court on Feb. 19.

The second amendment in action.

I'm not cherry-picking. These are just what's in our daily news. I didn't mention yesterday's three-year-old blowing his brains onto the wall because that would be piling on. And besides, we've pretty much decided that everyone gets guns but no one is responsible for them. We should be proud.

skylinefirepest 3 months, 1 week ago

Dusty R, just a quick comment before I leave for the day. You have of your own volition made yourself a public figure by writing nasty diatribes about anything conservative in your own local paper. You justify such attacks under the heading of "satire' and take great delight in stirring the pot on any and all issues that appeal to you as an extreme liberal lefty. You have done so under your own name and used your law credentials as a crutch. Therefore, as you should well know, it would be almost impossible for a member of the public to "libel" you as you seem to so frequently claim along with your threats of "legal action" against those who dis-agree with you. I suggest you get a thicker hide...I know your lame threats are not going to cause me to go light on you. I also suggest that Mr. Nagy have a little talk with you and tell you flat out that the management of the Pilot is very probably not interested in being dragged into your little hissy fit battles...they have better fish to fry. Mr. Nagy...I know that you read these comments and I'd really like to know why my comment to Dusty was deleted...I have re-read what was said and I don't see how it violates your rules or good taste in any way, shape, or form. Is it that Dusty whines about being mis-treated? I'll remind both of you that Dusty calls one of the commenters "justpissingboy" quite frequently, a name that is derisive, and not really the kind of language that normal people call each other in public. In closing, Dusty, let me just tell you that if I have offended you in any way, I want you to know from the bottom of my pea picking heart, with all due sincerity and seriousness...I don't give a crap!!

Already Outlawed

More like this story

Comments

May events