Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, February 25, 2011

Scary question from tea partier

I wasn't planning to write a post today. But this article upset me so much that I had to comment. When a tea partier at a town hall meeting with one of the most conservative members of Congress asks this question: " "Who is going to shoot President Obama?"",we have a potentially serious and dangerous problem in our country. What country are we living in again? Do we assassinate our Presidents and elected leaders in our "civilized country not war"? Oh, I forgot, we have and we do. There is something dangerous and unsettling happening in this country. As I have blogged before, the gun guys seem more extreme than ever and more provocative. They are stockpiling guns and ammunition in case they need them against their own elected government. They are making overt threats on blog posts and comments to articles, they think they can say anything without repercussion. 


To whit:an Indiana Assistant Attorney General tweeted about using violence against the Wisconsin protesters and, thankfully, was fired for his remarks. When Jeff Cox said this to a reporter: " “Use live ammunition.”", he was taken seriously by those who realized that this was not O.K. for a public official to say. " This is not Jeff Cox’s first foray into political rhetoric. He has railed against President Obama, Robert Reich, the SEIU, and Brandon Johnson--“a teenage black thug who was (deservedly) beaten up by IMPD as he tried to prevent the arrest of his equally thuggish brother for burglary.” Johnson was arrested for being unruly. After he was taken to the ground, an off-duty officer slapped Johnson and kneed him a few times. Johnson was released and not charged with anything. The charges against his brother were dropped." 


The state of Indiana realized the liability of continuing the employment of such a volatile and angry man. Here is from their official statement about the firing of Jeff Cox: " Civility and courtesy toward all members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General's Office. We respect individuals' First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.”" And then Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker made this statement to an investigative reporter:"  "You know, well the -- the only problem -- because we thought about that … My only fear would be is that, if there was a ruckus caused, is that would scare the public into thinking the governor's got to settle to avoid all these problems. Where I've said, 'We can handle this. This is Madison, full of the '60s liberals. Let 'em protest.'""The Madison Chief of Police Noble Wray has some obvious questions for the Governor. " "It was a public safety risk," Wray said. "Based upon what he was saying, it was suggesting to cause disorderly behavior. That could have led to unrest.""


The interesting thing about the comments of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Indiana Assistant Attorney General Jeff Cox is that they were unapologetic for their remarks. They think they can make these kinds of threats and public remarks without reprisal. They are responsible for their own public statements. When public statements are seen to be threats of violence or calling for violent actions, the public has every right to be worried. We should be worried and very scared that a tea partier suggests openly that someone should shoot President Obama. This is serious stuff. 


I suggest to the pro gun side that when these statements are made by public officials or by their own at tea party rallies or on blog comments, their cause becomes tainted and should be questioned. How can we take the pro gun side seriously when they defend and use such rhetoric? If these folks want the rest of us to believe that they are just law abiding citizens who won't do anything wrong and we should leave them and their guns alone, then they need to stop with this dangerous rhetoric. Common sense tells the public that we can't let this continue. Common sense tells the public that this is dangerous and is not acceptable. Common sense tells us that reasonable laws to stop the easy access to guns to people who can't handle them responsibly may stop the wrong person from shooting a public official or innocent protesters at a rally. Common sense tells us that our gun culture is leading us down paths that could be dangerous for our country. Reasonable restrictions are called for. Civility is called for. When "the guys with the guns make the rules" ( from Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP for the NRA) mentality is prevalent and succeeds in overcoming common sense, our country needs to take a step back and examine what that actually means.

56 comments:

  1. The Washington Post's Plum Line blog says the Secret Service has spoken with the person who asked the question, and determined that "he or she was an 'elderly person' who now regrets making a bad joke."

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/25/134054078/crowd-laughs-when-congressman-is-asked-whos-going-to-shoot-obama

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are no excuses for these kind of remarks. I believe the person meant it seriously- why say it otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I suggest to the pro gun side that when these statements are made by public officials or by their own at tea party rallies or on blog comments, their cause becomes tainted and should be questioned. How can we take the pro gun side seriously when they defend and use such rhetoric?"

    1. Are you equating republicans with the pro-gun movement?

    2. Both sides have idiots who say stupid things. The difference is when a republican says it, it gets plastered across the evening news. When Rep. Michael Capuano (D) calls for blood in the streets, it gets glossed over and ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Violent comments are a Tea Party, conservative or "gun guy" thing?

    [url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145627-dem-lawmaker-on-labor-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d653ba255a078ef,0]Democrat urges unions to 'get a little bloody when necessary'[/url]

    ReplyDelete
  5. japete - Sounds like the secret service followed up on it. They are first and foremost responsible for the president's security, so I'll respectfully defer to their professional judgment and experience.

    There are idiots exercising poor judgment on all sides of any issue. Open any newspaper for daily examples.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem is that the US has the highest number of assassinations and attempted assassinations in addition to leading the world in the amount of mass shootings.

    Of course, the gun crowd would say this is just the price we pay for our freedom.

    See also:
    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/assassinations.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  7. In "Saving Private Ryan" during the beach scene, a soldier has his arm blown off, and stumbles back to pick it up. People in the theater I was in laughed. People on both sides of our debate say and laugh at stupid, careless things. I have heard supposedly compassionate and tolerant people say that soldiers fighting to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan deserve to die because they've chosen to be in the military.

    I condemn the "joke".

    ReplyDelete
  8. You your self have made the comment that you were out to steal away everyone's guns. You said it. Why would you say such a thing if you didnt mean it?

    Oh yeah You were being sarcasticat the time. You said it to make a point. People get up to talk and are nervous and make a bad joke or failed attempt at sarcasm. It happens.


    Was it a smart thing to do? No. Does it reflect on the whole tea pastry movement? No. Only available option? Get over it

    ReplyDelete
  9. Was the guy a tea partier, or just some ignorant and angry old man? I'm not excusing it. I hope the guy gets a nice visit from the Secret Service for that. But politics attracts the crazies on all sides, and there's not much you an do about it except either ignore or speak out against them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pitiful. What is really pitiful about the remark about shooting Obama is that that the crowd laughed and the representative didn't immediatly condemn the person who asked it. The correct response would be immediate shock and a request to have the commenter escorted from the room! This is particularly because it is the president of the United States they spoke about, but a comment suggesting assassination of anyone should bring about immediate condemnation from any reasonable person, whether it is meant as a joke or not.

    I am left shaking my head at yet another sad example of the far right and just how fringe they have become.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Do we assassinate our Presidents and elected leaders in our "civilized country not war"? Oh, I forgot, we have and we do."

    You may speak for yourself, but here speaking for my family, friends, neighbors, and everyone in the state, no we've never tried to assassinate any politician.

    "They are making overt threats on blog posts and comments to articles, they think they can say anything without repercussion. "

    Anyone who threatens the President gets a visit from the men in black. Anyone who is serious about it gets a vacation at Club Fed. I wouldn't assume that the person who asked that question even owns a single firearm - those who make threats are most often not threat at all.

    "When Jeff Cox said this to a reporter: " “Use live ammunition.”", he was taken seriously by those who realized that this was not O.K. for a public official to say. "

    It's not okay for anyone to say or do that.

    "I suggest to the pro gun side that when these statements are made by public officials or by their own at tea party rallies or on blog comments, their cause becomes tainted and should be questioned."

    Only those who judge people by other people's actions will think like that. I don't know any public officials or tea party members or blog commenters who make violent threats. I most certainly don't associate with them. I do spend a considerable amount of time lampooning such people. Partial agreement on one political issue isn't exactly a political partnership.

    "Common sense tells the public that we can't let this continue"

    Common sense says it is protected political speech, and common sense says that you can expect the political discourse to get dumber and uglier over time, and common sense says there isn't anything you can do to stop it from happening.

    "There are no excuses for these kind of remarks. I believe the person meant it seriously- why say it otherwise? "

    In America most people have become desensitized to violence. They only know of it from the movies. It is common for people to joke about doing horrible violence against other people. Violence is treated as entertainment and as a joke. This is true of all violence towards humans - not just gun violence. It's part of the loss of respect for human life that has been ingrained into many people's minds from our media and education systems. Thus it is very likely that someone will make a stupid unfunny joke in a completely inappropriate setting.

    Big whoop. Bad jokes are not going to kill anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I don't know any public officials or tea party members or blog commenters who make violent threats. " That is where you are wrong. There are threats for sure. No sense denying it because it is common knowledge. I'm glad to hear that you are not one of these folks or hang out with them. As to the joke statement at the end- I disagree. This is nothing to joke about- bad joke or not. It can and has turned into action.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Heather- yes- the shoe seems to fit. These comments are not coming from the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And Heather, I do not condone the comments by Rep. Capuano either. He should not have said that. I know that some of these do come from Democrats but in most cases, they are coming from the tea partiers and Republicans. No one is pure here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Come on, P- You know that it is just not the same as threatening to kill someone. By that sarcasm, I was not recommending violence. I believe you know that but now you feel as you must offer some excuse or accuse me of something to divert attention from the real problem.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sebastian- the guy was described as tea partier. Since he was at a town hall meeting with one of the most conservative members of the House, I would suspect that he is likely a tea partier.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "That is where you are wrong. There are threats for sure. No sense denying it because it is common knowledge."

    There may be threats, but I don't know of them. I'm not denying that out of the 300 million people in this country that one or a dozen or more haven't made threats, but like I said, I don't know them not even anonymously online. I did read one person who kept advocating for the mass murder of all drug users and dealers, but he wasn't threatening to do it, only advocating it as a form of "drug control".

    "I'm glad to hear that you are not one of these folks or hang out with them. As to the joke statement at the end- I disagree. This is nothing to joke about- bad joke or not. It can and has turned into action. "

    Name a case where someone made a joke like this and then took action. I can't think of any.

    "No one is pure here. "

    Um, I am. Haven't threatened violence against anyone. Haven't associated with one who does so.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "A JOKE??"

    Seriously?

    I'm not laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm with Heather on this one. What kind of common sense are you using to connect angry tea-partiers to gun owners? These are two completely separate issues with some intersections, but the tea party movement is about much more than guns.

    If you want to understand the history behind the current anger in the Tea Party, you should read the book, "The Next American Civil War". The book is not about an armed uprising. I think you owe it to yourself to become better informed, because this increasing anger is not about guns.

    I don't condone the anger or threats, but it doesn't surprise me like it surprises you because I understand it. Unfortunately, I believe it's only going to get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Migo- I hope you are wrong for everyone's sake. If you are making a prediction based on what the pro gun folks have said on my blog, then I might actually believe you. In addition, though, I think you guys are wrong if you think that armed uprisings against your own government is not anarchy. That said, what do you think is going to get worse? Threats against the President? threats to use live ammunition against peaceful protesters? bills that will make it legal to kill abortion providers? threats on blog posts? threats against elected officials? shooting elected officials? I don't have any intention of reading a book about the anger behind the tea party. I owe it to myself to avoid reading any such book.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ah, avoiding knowledge- the hallmark of the enlightened mind. I'm sure I've heard something along the lines of "I know all I need to know." before.

    As for rising against your own government, it's not anarchy if it's part of the system of checks and balances. The oath that I and others here took was to the Constitution, not to the President, Congress, or SECDEF. The most powerful military on the planet is sworn to protect and defend a document.

    As for all of this-
    "Threats against the President? threats to use live ammunition against peaceful protesters? bills that will make it legal to kill abortion providers? threats on blog posts? threats against elected officials? shooting elected officials?"

    There have always been threats against the President. As for the South Dakota bill, the intent was not to make a secret loophole to kill abortion doctors. The Justine Winter case may have contributed to this, as there was a great deal of discontent that the unborn child didn't "count" to the court.

    These are all examples of bad behavior. Bad behavior is punished in the court of public opinion. To paraphrase the Colonel, there are more good people than bad. If innocent protesters are shot, then the shooter just lost their particular war.

    Hurting people in general is frowned upon in this country. Westboro Baptist Church manages to piss of the left, the right, all military members (current and former), gun nuts, bikers, gay bikers, the police officers who have to defend them, and pretty much anyone that's not them.
    Explain to me how they're still breathing? The fact that they still sit on street corners trolling the world is a testament to the tolerance and restraint among Americans. When things get bad, tongues loosen and the nuttier ones come out of the woodwork, but for the most part, we remain a pretty decent group.

    I think we can all settle down about it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I read Laci's link about political assassination.

    The numbers get much tamer once all those "assassinations" that took place during the Civil War are taken out. After all, assassination wasn't ruled out as a legitimate tool of policy until the later half of the twentieth century.

    Oh, and just think how cool it would have been had Guy Fawkes been successful! One Brit could have totally stolen the number one spot from us.

    And why the hell aren't we counting Stalin and Lenin's purges? That killed a helluva lot more people than were ever assassinated in the US. How about the 84 dead in the "Night of the Long Knives" in the Third Reich?

    Come on Laci, you can't just assert that the US has more political assassinations than any other country without actually looking at other countries. Proof by vigorous assertion is no proof at all.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "threats to use live ammunition against peaceful protesters"

    Ahh, but our government actually did use live ammunition against (mostly) peaceful protesters who were unarmed. I don't recall any threats from gun owners about shooting peaceful protesters, please enlighten me if I have missed them all.

    And I think our country has had far fewer assassinations than many other nations. Russia for instance, somebody seems to mysteriously die at least once a month. Or maybe Iraq, how many times do you open the newspaper to read about another suicide bombing assassination attempt. For a developed nation, yes, we have had an rather high number of assassinations, but then this is also a very large country compared to most other developed nations. Yes, it is a problem, but it's not my fault, it's not gun owner's fault, it's not the Tea Party's fault. And an idiot who makes a horrible 'joke' about assassinating President Obama is not a representative of the entire Tea Party, nor are they a representative of me just because we might have something in common.

    And for what it's worth, how many calls for Bush's death did we hear during his presidency? Somehow it seemed acceptable to joke about that. Right on TV, people could joke about his death, and somehow it was funny, even encouraged. I never even liked Bush, and I don't like Obama either, but I'll never condone talk of assassination regarding either of them, or any elected official. This has nothing to do with gun owners or 'gun culture'. This is society being desensitized to violence, and a loss of respect for other people. We have two political sides taking shots at each other with nasty rhetoric, it's only going to get worse if people don't demand that it be toned down, and it must be demanded of both sides. If one side is going to condemn the other side for such nastiness, and not knowledge it coming from their own side, then they are only contributing to the problem.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  24. ‘‘You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.’’

    — Charles A. Beard

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joan, I have several college educated friends questioning their existence because of the current economy, and others who are struggling to get a new education they can't afford. Recently, I tried in vain to find a psychiatrist for a severely depressed friend. Every doctor I called wasn't accepting new patients! So what is the future of a society filled with people who don't care about their existence, can't get an education or a job, and can't even get the psychological help they need, assuming they can even afford it?

    As for tea-partiers, they're very upset about the "nanny" government telling them what to do. Somebody else on this blog likes to label it inconveniences, like I should be inconvenienced when I have a cold because the only effective cold medicine for me is banned by my government, or I should be inconvenienced into paying more into the system because the federal government interferes with a state's right to control illegal immigration across its borders. This nonsensical control is only going to make people miserable and downright ornery!

    You only need to look through a few pages of Senator Coburn's Wastebook 2010 to see what our government is doing with our tax dollars while so many Americans are struggling to survive (you might like #10 on page 12). Some of the backlash from this anger is to now cut national science funding in addition to what's happening at the local level, like in Wisconsin.

    Oh, I can definitely see the anger increasing in this country. None of this gives me the warm fuzzies inside, and like I said before, guns are just a small part of this, unless you ask yourself, how do we adjudicate someone mentally defective and get them into NICS when all the psychiatrists are busy? What is really the point of making more laws when the current ones won't or can't be enforced?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow everyone. There have been a lot of comments pushing back at me about all kinds of things, most of which had nothing to do with my post. So founding fathers had guns. I've never heard that they were out using them much but you have shown me that they had them and seemed to have liked them. I am not sure that proves anything one way or the other. And Democrats have also made what appear to be incendiary comments that some have apologized for and some not. And yes, George W. Bush had some pretty ugly stuff directed at him. As for all of that, I was pointing out what has been going on in the past few days concering things said by Republicans that I found to be offensive and dangerous. I still think that calling for someone to shoot President Obama is a potentially dangerous remark that should not have been made by the person who made it. I think Governor Walker was wrong by suggesting that some trouble makers should be brought in to the Wisconsin protests and I still believe that the Indiana Assistant Attorney General is a jerk and a mean and angry man, not to mention unethical, for saying that live ammunition should be used against the protesters in Wisconsin. So I stand by my original post not withstanding the comments made by my readers. Not all of them were published, so far anyway, because there were some that were repetitive, some that were ridiculous in my estimation, and some that didn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. Some of the recent comments have been accusatory and provocative and what I continue to be harassment so they will not appear here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I still think that calling for someone to shoot President Obama is a potentially dangerous remark that should not have been made by the person who made it."

    Agreed.

    "I think Governor Walker was wrong by suggesting that some trouble makers should be brought in to the Wisconsin protests..."

    Standard practice during G8 Summits, etc. It's wrong then too, because professional agitators will get an untrained cop so worked up he'll punch a grandma in the face- and that's almost verbatim from a US Park Police crowd control instructor.

    "...and I still believe that the Indiana Assistant Attorney General is a jerk and a mean and angry man, not to mention unethical, for saying that live ammunition should be used against the protesters in Wisconsin."

    I can only assume it was a joke, because someone contemplating mass murder doesn't typically talk about it openly. If it was a joke, it was a foolish and irresponsible thing to say. If it wasn't a joke, well...just goes to show you can't put too much faith in the government.

    I don't want to say "all" ("never say never" and all that) but I think most of us agree with you here. Everyone has "that guy" in their group, the one that makes everyone else cringe and cross their fingers when he speaks in public.

    Please don't compare us to them just because we have guns. It seems kind of mean spirited.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Please know that I am not blaming all pro gun folks but way too often, people on this blog act like they might do the same or say the same as the examples I have given. And since I happen to be a liberal Democrat, I worry deeply about whether President Obama will be shot by some one who hates him enough to do so. I also worry about a violent incident at the Wisconsin protests. You may remember that there were a few folks with openly displayed guns at tea party events and Obama events- one in my home state. I believe I have reasons to worry. The signs at the tea party rallies make it quite clear that Obama hating and insults calling him Muslim and pictures of him depicted as Hitler and the Joker are disconcerting to say the least. When these things are prevelant at these events, it tends to taint a whole bunch of people.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The President is in good hands, Joan. I have gotten to work with USSS details on several occasions, and they are an impressive and professional group. And very, very thorough.

    The open carry movement coincided with Obama's election, and a lot of people just like to push the envelope as to what they're technically allowed to do. There were a lot of gun owners who were super pissed about the negative attention to open carry. I'm kind of on the fence about it. I've never heard of anyone who was trying to make the statement that they'd shoot an elected official if given the chance. There are lots of open carriers around here, and the few that would try to make any statement would just be saying "remember our deal".

    As for the signs, that has gone both ways. A brief Google search found this website with lots of "Kill Bush" pictures and effigies. If you're interested just scroll down the left side. I tried to find a site with less mental derangement, but alas.

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/i-am-tired-of-the-mentally-deranged-left/question-1437387/

    I think you and I would both agree that we'd like to think of Americans as better than a violent mob shouting and burning people in effigy. The problem is that the "discourse" is heavily influenced by the lunatic fringe on both sides.

    Most of us understand and respect the democratic process. If the people want JaPete for President in 2012, well then the people have spoken. There would of course be some hateful rhetoric from a vocal minority as always, but it would be business as usual.

    But if President Pete begins suspending civil rights "for the greater good", or mucking about with the democratic process, then we'd have a problem. But we'd send in someone diplomatic like DHS to try to talk it out first.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This link is to a very strange website. I'm not sure I trust what I see on it. It makes me think of the "Onion" where a lot of fake news is written.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The point was not the website, Joan. Are you saying those pictures were made up? The point was just this-

    "...George W. Bush had some pretty ugly stuff directed at him."

    It's not an indictment of liberals that a few are a little on the bloodthirsty savage side, not any more than you should judge everyone associated with the Tea Party movement because of one foolish old man.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Joan the google anti bush or simply listen to the YouTube of Alec baldwin threatening to kill US senators. You don't have to love a websites core values to see the pictures.

    Or are you saying all those Anti Bush sentiments never happened. That Jeanette Garafalo didn't call the Bush presidency the 43rd Reich?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joan, when I said I can see the anger increasing in this country, I hope you didn't extrapolate to future armed uprisings, assassinations, or a repeat of the Kent State massacre. I meant heated invective discussions in public forums and assemblies as has been popularized by the Tea Party movement.

    One more thing that you should know about the Tea Party is that they strive to strictly adhere to the Constitution. Assassinations are blasphemous to the Constitution because it's like taking a pair of scissors to it to cut out parts that one, not the people, but one doesn't like. The United States Constitution is an incredible document in that it contains mechanisms to completely rewrite it if we the people choose to do so. The people can redefine the President, or more simply impeach him. Unlike in other countries, here in the United States there really is no need for assassinations or any uprisings.

    Finally, pro-gun folks don't appreciate negative media coverage about guns, so a true pro-gun advocate is not going to intentionally do something stupid with a gun. The open carry and campus carry movements are only about defensive uses of a gun. The fastest way for a pro-gun person to set the clock back on gun freedoms is to use a gun offensively against anyone, including themselves. In fact, one of the reasons my gun club strives so hard to maintain an excellent safety record is because we don't want negative media attention.

    I can assure you that I, and everyone I know, would do exactly what you would do if we discovered a genuine presidential assassination plot - call 911 or contact the FBI.

    I really believe you would be less fearful if you read more about the groups you write about or spent some time with them at some of the more popular shooting sport events or training classes. Hunting is not the only legitimate use of civilian firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Some of the recent comments have been accusatory and provocative and what I continue to be harassment so they will not appear here."

    Perhaps you could try to see the irony in this statement? You say comments have been accusatory, but isn't that what you did when you labeled this person a tea partier? You have been unwilling or unable to provide any evidence as to his affiliation. You have suggested that since he was at a Republican gathering that he *must* be a tea partier. You put forth the accusation in public, then you claim hurt feelings when people accuse you of stretching the truth? Or of fabricating allegience when there is none?

    You've derided Fox news before on this blog, but you will note the popularity it has garnered in recent years. This is because the "liberal media" makes accusations such as yours without the facts to back it up. It is unabashedly prejudiced. I'm not sure why you cannot see that, or if perhaps you feel it is politically expedient to make such a comparison.

    As for President Obama being depicted as Hitler, I'm not sure where your outrage is coming from. We just had eight years of President Bush being depicted as Hitler, and called a mass murder, a fascist, a dictator, etc.

    Nothing different that what Obama is being accused of these days.

    Remember the Ft. Hood shooter? Weren't we all chastised by the liberal media not to jump to conclusions that this was a terrorist act just because he had a Muslim name? I'm sorry to see you jump into the same camp.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No, P, I'm not saying that. I am commenting on what happened recently regarding the call out of a threat and public officials mentioning live ammunition and stirring up trouble at protest rallies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Migo- I'm aware of the safety that is followed by people at gun clubs and shooting ranges. I have a good friend who shoots at a local club here. He told me that the owner recently got quite angry with some guys who were doing some reckless shooting. Of course, he wants to keep it safe because lives are at stake when bullets are flying.

    ReplyDelete
  37. " I have a good friend who shoots at a local club here."

    I'd still put forth that he wouldn't be your friend if he knew what you were after.

    Anecdotes aside - by far the majority of gun owners are like your "friend". We wish to maintain a safe environment. Of course, you'll try and tar us all based on the Bloomington incident -- and YOU DID! Surprise surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  38. How would you know anything about my friends? I just had a discussion about guns and gun control with him 2 nights ago? He is firmly on my side and knows exactly what I am doing. He supports my efforts. I had several discussions with gun owners 2 days ago, by the way. All of them were supportive of my efforts and just shake their heads at the claims made by some of you on this blog. They are gun owners who don't see reasonable gun laws as restrictions on their ability to own guns or their rights to use them for recreational purposes, to defend themselves or to hunt. In fact, I have discussed this 2 City Council members who have their permits to carry. They both support what I am doing and know exactly what I am doing. These are the gun owners who answer questions on the polls that show support for background checks and other reasonable gun laws. Someone I know attended a gun show in my state recently and actually asked a private seller if he supported background checks on all sales at gun shows. He said he did and would have no problem having an ffl at the show do background checks on the people who want to buy his guns.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "He is firmly on my side and knows exactly what I am doing. He supports my efforts. I had several discussions with gun owners 2 days ago, by the way. All of them were supportive of my efforts and just shake their heads at the claims made by some of you on this blog."

    I'm pretty sure they're not aware of the extent of the Brady's madness! :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Someone I know attended a gun show in my state recently and actually asked a private seller if he supported background checks on all sales at gun shows. He said he did and would have no problem having an ffl at the show do background checks on the people who want to buy his guns."

    Huh...anecdotal evidence works for you, but not when presented by someone else, right?

    Do your "permit to carry City Council members" know that you don't support their right to carry? Probably not -- you merely tell them you're after "evil black rifles" and "deadly killing high capacity clips".

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey, I have friends who shoot at clubs down here who oppose your efforts.

    I'll bet I can find more who are against your effort and for common sense than you can find "friends" who support you! :)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now here is where we need to stop the hyperbole. Saying "Brady's madness" is just not contributing to the dialogue here. You don't like Brady and I don't like the NRA. If we have facts proving that they are wrong or using tactics we don't like, we can provide them. I have done so and I do criticize Wayne LaPierre for statements made that I find objectionable or false. I know that my side and maybe even Brady goes over the top at times. We feel we have to do that to create a buzz and call attention to our issues. Both sides need to do a better job of this. How about starting right here on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  43. You are wrong anon. I have not said that people don't have the right to carry. I don't like it but it's the law. If people choose to carry, go ahead. I just don't think it is necessary to carry in all public places. Both of these people, by the way, do not often carry and one now has a different job so she doesn't carry her gun at all at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Come on Pat. Is this a &^%%ing match again? Let's act like adults here.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Joan - No #$%ing match, you started it with comments about your "hunting and shooting friends". I'm merely pointing out that I have hunting and shooting friends who oppose your efforts as well - some of whom aren't all that interested in the politics either.

    ReplyDelete
  46. So Pat, just to be snarky- who has more friends then becomes the question.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I was wondering if you have a comment on this article. What kind of punishment you think he should get? Also do you think he should be able to own a gun at this moment he seems like he could have some issues.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wisconsin-dem-to-gop-colleague-youre-fing-dead/

    ReplyDelete
  48. I answered the question in my post- My epiphany. It would not be a good idea for legislators in that state of mind to be carrying loaded guns as has been suggested doing in some states. People do irrational things when they are angry and passionate. I know this is a gotcha question Anthony. I thought about not answering at all given that you are not really interested in my answer so much as you want to get me to say something that you can criticize.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "People do irrational things when they are angry and passionate."

    Normal people say insensitive or hurtful things, or break a lamp when they're angry and/or passionate. People who are violent towards others when they're angry need intervention in the form of incarceration and counseling.

    On our side, we believe that being angry isn't an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  50. That's good to know, anon. Neither does my side. The trouble is, you can't just incarcerate angry people. Counseling is recommended but not mandated, of course. I am interested in how you see this working practically given the limitations of doing such.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I actually am interested in your response and if you have the same reaction as some "tea Party" Member. The only way it would be a gotcha question is if you think he should be dealt with differently.
    This comment was actually directed to a woman that was actually in the room with the senator and who he will have close contact with for the rest of their terms.
    Interesting that I have seen no major news coverage on this at all and only a few news stories even show up on a search.

    On a side note you did not really answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "That's good to know, anon. Neither does my side. The trouble is, you can't just incarcerate angry people. Counseling is recommended but not mandated, of course. I am interested in how you see this working practically given the limitations of doing such."

    This goes back to our justice system discussion. That needs to be changed, and how we rehabilitate violent people. Violent people usually have a long history of becoming more violent.

    The point of my comment was that you don't have to incarcerate them, you just don't make them your senator.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anon- you had me there until your last sentence. What is that supposed to mean? Please explain.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It was just a jab at a Democrat with an anger problem. Just a joke. Quite frequently "that guy" is an elected official.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Nice,anon. Which Democrat do you think has an anger problem? I'm sure, of course, that no Republican has an anger problem. Or would you agree that some elected officials, just like some lawyers, some doctors, some electricians, some teachers, some in the news media, or any other profession or type, have anger problems?

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Nice,anon. Which Democrat do you think has an anger problem?"

    The one I thought we were talking about.
    The one who shouts ‘You’re F***ing Dead’ when he's frustrated.

    "I answered the question in my post- My epiphany. It would not be a good idea for legislators in that state of mind to be carrying loaded guns as has been suggested doing in some states."

    And I said normal people say something insulting or insensitive when they lose their temper. They don't threaten physical violence. Gordon Hintz is a bad man, mark my words.

    "I'm sure, of course, that no Republican has an anger problem."

    That's why I said "elected official", not "Democrat".

    "Or would you agree that some elected officials, just like some lawyers (snip) or any other profession or type, have anger problems?"

    Absolutely. Conversely, there are people in every profession, from every walk of life, and on both sides of the isle who "get it" and work hard to be better people.

    'Meanwhile, Litjens says she doesn‘t believe Hintz’s comments were personally aimed at her, but reflected the Democrat’s frustration with his Republican colleagues. “We should be able to civilly discuss issues we are passionate about without feeling threatened,” she said.'

    I think we can all agree on that.

    ReplyDelete