Pro-Gun Advocates Claim Victory in Oklahoma Session

By | May 15, 2012

  • May 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    After Katina, the New Orleans thug police force conficated weapons law abiding citizens had for protection. Most all of that “thug” force has been fired and/or arrested themselves.

  • May 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm
    Wonderer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So why is this article in my Insurance Journal news. Is the Journal planning to take a stand on this issue?

    • May 15, 2012 at 4:38 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Personal liaiblity insurance risks due to open carry laws, perhaps?

      Open-Carry brings an all new level to personal liabilty exposure…

  • May 15, 2012 at 2:47 pm
    Jon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While I am a firm proponent of gun ownership, I have to balk at the idea of constitutional firearm ownership.

    Firearms are a tool, but still a dangerous one. I prefer people to have at least a minimum level of safety and marksman training before they strap on a gun.

    • May 15, 2012 at 3:13 pm
      TAR says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Jon, the 2nd Amendment is quite clear giving citizens the Right to Bear Arms. You may balk at it or want to redefine a gun as a “tool” to justify owning a gun or government oversight (such as mandating training). But that’s been the problem in this country with lawyers redefining what the 2nd Amendment means, what the 1St Amendment means. The Founding Fathers were quite clear with the Bill of Rights. I guess if we redefine a gun as a “tool” then we also need to have classes in the operation of an electric saw or drill or even a level?

      • May 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Wow, way to misread most of my post…

        A gun *is* a tool. If you cannot grasp that simple concept, please go back and research your dictionary.

        I’m redefining nothing.

        Do you understand what the “constitutional gun ownership” movement is? That’s the freedom for anyone to own, and openly wear, a gun.

        Now pay good attention to *all* the people around you today. Very good attention.

        Now imagine each and every one of them wearing a gun openly, and then imagine the consequences.

        I routinely see people I wouldn’t trust to walk and chew gum at the same time. And the thought of them walking around openly armed, *without* any requirement for them to to safely understand the use of their firearm?

        If that mental snapshot doesn’t induce bowel-clenching terror in you? Well, perhaps your planet is a nicer and more utopian place than this one is.

        • May 15, 2012 at 3:52 pm
          TAR says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Well my apologies Jon, didn’t mean to offend you. Just haven’t seen a gun defined as a “tool”. I for one don’t think it’s going to be the Wild West (Utopia or not). No different than an idiot getting drunk, going to his car and pulling out a gun. Guess he can now pull it quicker, only thing is there will be more people around the numbnuts who will pull there’s as well. I don’t live in a Utopia (but that was a funny statement, I have to admit) nor do I stand around singing kum-by-ya. Have no problem with open gun carry, also would have no problem with having to take a NRA gun safety course either. One can never have enough firearm training. All it takes is one incident like Plaxico Burress for people to realize guns are not toys.

          • May 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            So, really we’re on the same side of the fence.

            I certainly support gun ownership, the 2nd ammendment and concealed carry–I just want the people carrying to actually know what they’re doing. :)

            Too many rage-a-holics on the road, in the malls (shudder) and in the grocery store check out lines for me to ever want universal carry with no training requirements.

            And if I sounded overly snarky, I apologize as well. I Should not attempt to post and argue with an attorney at the same time…

        • May 15, 2012 at 3:55 pm
          TAR says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Oh by the way Jon, I also conceal carry. So I’m quite aware of my surroundings and the person next to me. Even at the gun range. Thanks for the concern.

          • May 16, 2012 at 2:22 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I devoutly wish that my state allowed for concealed carry. I’d feel safer for my wife when she works late hours in the city.

        • May 22, 2012 at 2:24 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Jon,
          Having lived in a state that has always allowed open carry, I feel that your concerns are not founded in fact. In the last 40 years that I have been here I have never once seen an individual who has had a firearm openly displayed that has ever caused me any concern. The ones that you need to worry about are and have always been the criminals and those individuals carry concealed even if they do not have the right to do so.

      • May 22, 2012 at 2:09 pm
        J.S. says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Actually TAR, the second amendment of the constitution gives us a clear and unequivocal right to own tanks,fighter jets, bombs of all types (including nuclear), and biological weapons in addition to the right to own guns. The first half of the amendment indicates the need for citizens to have the ability to overcome an attempt at a military coup and the remainder refers to arms, not guns. Armies and militias of the day had weaponry (think cannons) other than guns and many military battles included both regular army and militia. By not allowing ownership of all other types of weapons, the entire purpose behind the amendment as stated in the amendment is denied.

        So, why don’t all you gun rights people fight for the entire amendment? Why only guns?

        • May 22, 2012 at 2:19 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          J.S., although your point is correct I as a pro-gun person feel that we can not afford to go back and undue the prior legislation at this point, although I could support that as well. What is important to me today is that the government not take any more rights from me. Just drawing the line in the sand.

        • May 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm
          TAR says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Well J.S. since it appears you are not pro-gun, with your snarky comment at the end I’ll tell you why. We the people, who own exercise our 2nd Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms aren’t buying tanks, cannons, rocket launchers. We enjoy the right to keep rifles, shotguns, handguns. We enjoy hunting and sport shooting. We are not walking into the street looking for a gunfight. We are not Lybia or Syria as we are more civilized and revere the Constitution and respect our Constitutional Republic. We are actually reasonable Americans, but also understand when a government gets out of control, as is what’s happening of late. We have a current administration who’s regime is turning to the U.N. for implementation of world law that limits guns and weapons in the Western Democracies, as well as now seeking to limit Free Speech in America. The U.S. Constitition is quite clear that it is the Supreme Law of the land. Not U.N. law, not South African Law and certainly not Shariah Law.

          • May 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Interesting responses. First, I’ll grant your comment that my last sentence was a bit snarky. What can I say, it’s a personality flaw.

            More seriously, I see a second amendment that clearly is not the law of the land and which would be completely unworkable if we tried to follow it to the letter. The world has changed in ways unimaginable to the writers of the Constitution. A militia can not hope to hold off a modern army that is intent on destroying it. The recent attempts to pretend this was possible consisted of nothing more than people with guns putting lots of unarmed women and children in their midst and daring anyone to try to enter thus creating a media firestorm. A couple of fighter jets and the militia compounds are gone in a couple of seconds.

            So the actual topic is really nothing more than putting guns in the hands of the person standing next to me in the elevator, walking past me on the street or shopping in the next aisle. This isn’t about hunting and sport shooting, it’s about fear and intimidation, letting me know that I’d better not mess with you and admittedly, I don’t like it. The fewer people around me carrying guns, the better.

            The argument is always about the Constitution but the real reason is feeling powerful and intimidating people. Hunt and sport shoot all you want, I couldn’t care less but I do have a problem when you insist on concealed carry.

          • May 22, 2012 at 6:32 pm
            TAR says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            J.S., I must admit I took the word “snarky” from Jon in a previous post – lol. We all have personality flaws. I do think your last comment was sincere and it comes down to a mutual disagreement. You made an interesting statement – “The world has changed unimaginable…” and this is where I would disagree with you. Our Founders did imagine the world changing, I don’t think they imagined how changes in the Constitution have occurred and abused by the government, as well as the reinterpretations and redefining of the 2nd Amendment, as well as the 1st Amendment for that matter. I think you’re basing your point on feelings and emotions “putting women and children in the midst of fire”. That’s pure emotion, nothing to do with and not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in my opinion. The power right now is with the government, who is trying to sanitize and dilute the Constitution. In many of Thomas Jefferson’s writings he eloquently states the power should reside with the people and to paraphrase, the people lose the Republic when government takes more power from the people, which has been done the past 100 yrs. They (the government) is now the protectors of the people. Hogwash! While a very small percentage of gun owners feel the “power” in owning a weapon, the majority know we are a stones throw away of government siezing our guns and that’s not paranoia (Australia & U.K already done). I believe the Founders foresaw this, heck they foresaw the 2000 Election, they foresaw the John Q. Adams/Jackson election and due to their brilliance a series of steps were already in place to deal with a controversial issue. I don’t buy into the Progressive thought process we should render a different interpretation of the Constitution because it’s 2012 and this is where we differ. You water down the 2nd Amendment, government and Obama can make the 1st Amendment irrelevant or the 4th Amendment or 10th Amendment. Was the 4th Amendment improved in the 60’s with the implementation Miranda Rights, sure. But we did not have to change the 4th Amendment or go the U.N. for approval.
            Respectfully I disagree with feeling powerful and intimidating people. Carrying a gun doesn’t increase my manhood, I hope to hell I never have to use it (my weapon, not manhood). In a civil society you show restraint and a moral obligation not to use your weapon, but you do have a right to defend yourself against those who think otherwise.

  • May 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    Felicia Gronewald says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jon is mischaracterizing the issue. Even with “constitutional gun ownership” it is agreed that Age of Consent laws and Due Process can be exercised where mentally deficient are adjudicated as such can not own a weapon. Those two ARE constitutional.
    Second, the Chicken Little scenarios about all of those open carry holders have been predicted for years in those states that have Open Carry. The scenarios have NEVER materialized.
    Tsk, tsk Jon, Ever tought of a career as a Fiction Writer?

    • May 16, 2012 at 2:18 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Frequently, but it wouldn’t pay the bills. Or the health insurance. You’d be surprised to know that even some “best selling” authors are not able to have a sustainable income based solely on the proceeds of their work. Not everyone can be a Janet Evanovich, Stephen King, or (shudder) Dan Brown.

      And frankly your “mischaracterizing” comment is a fallacy. I never mentioned the mentally deficient. Your basing your entire statment on a straw man argument.

      Average people in this country are not that stable. Well, let me amend that–people who live in more high-density population areas are not all that stable. There are more stressors in their lives than in low-density population areas.

      Your permissive open carry states? (The no-licensing required states.) Those are states that are universally of low-density populations.

      Licensed open carry states (of which there are more than permissive open carry) have more structured guidelines and qualifications to get that license to open carry.

      And again–licensing and mandatory firearm safety training are good things in my book.

      Constitutional firearm ownership doesn’t mandate training or licensing.

      Tsk Tsk yourself. You need a more formal structured education in argument writing. Address my issues please, and not the targets you make up to point your statements at.

  • May 16, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Can’t we all just get along?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*