Marty O’Malley: A single life ‘worth more than all the guns in the United States’
That other liberal Democrat candidate for president disregarded my post yesterday about a rational discussion in regards to guns. Fox News quotes him;
“A single American life is worth more than all the guns in the United States,” O’Malley said while giving a speech at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco. “How many senseless acts of violence do we have to endure as a people before we stand up to the congressional lobbyists of the National Rifle Association? How many more Americans have to die?”
While governor of Maryland, O’Malley instituted laws banning assault weapons and high capacity gun magazines that “exist only to inflict human casualty.” He also implemented strict licensing rules cracking down on the gun-permitting process, to ensure maximum safety.
[…]
O’Malley recently told supporters that his legislation passed in Maryland is just his first step for his plan for the nation.
Yeah, that’s not how you talk to adults, Marty.
This morning, in our “feel good stories” two more Americans lost their lives, two more Americans who wished ill on law abiding innocent American citizens. Are those the lives you want to protect, Marty?
Tell me how banning what you call “assault weapons” and what you call “high capacity magazines” would have prevented the shooting in Charleston? Or, any number of murders in this country, for that matter. Reportedly, the little retarded racist in Charleston reloaded five times. He didn’t need a modern sporting rifle or thirty round magazines to murder nine people.
It looks like he also lied on his ATF form 4473 for his background check. Look down in 11(e) where it references illegal drug use.
So, how would O’Malley fix the fact that criminals don’t care if they lie on government forms, you know, seein’s as how they plan on committing more crimes? Would fingerprinting gun buyers fix that? Well, if they don’t mind signing false declarations, I don’t see how fingerprinting would scare them away. More stringent background checks? How would that work if the government doesn’t keep their background checks lists (NICS) updated?
How many more senseless acts of stupidity do the American people have to suffer before Marty O’Malley shuts his stupid mouth? The only people who we read about protecting themselves from criminals in their homes in Maryland are off-duty cops and corrections officers. If Marty had his way, those are the only people in America who can sleep safely at night.
Thanks to Pinto Nag for the link.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Resident military liberal douchebag reporting in, gun control bullshit such as this is stupid. All I need do is point at I think it was Switzerland. 1 in 2 adults owns an assault rifle… That country simultaneously has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Now, I’m not gonna start trumpeting that causality implies correlation, but uh… Yeah, I think people would be deterred from being criminals if they knew they could catch an AR-15 round in the jaw for it.
Their is a good video on YouTube about Swiss gun laws. It turns out one good speeding ticket and no more guns for you. Other laws like that may be part of the culture of good behavior in Switzerland.
Believable, especially because correct me if I’m wrong, but basically anyone of age could be drafted to form an army if necessary, making it almost necessary to own a weapon?
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/mandatory-military_swiss-voters-endorse-army-conscription/36955534
The Swiss are part of four other countries in Western Europe to still maintain mandatory conscription. The rest are the Danes, Norwegians and Austrians.
Fuck Martin O’Mangina sideways, in his syphilitic, scab encrusted, vagina, with an AIDS infected, salt covered, rabid, hungry porcupine.
And with the SOB mean enough to infect the porcupine.
Just what IS it you have against porcupines, Chip? Did Teddy Bear forget your birthday or something? Did he reject your offer of corn at Chrismas?
Just trying to understand, y’know.
You forgot the pineapple, large, 1 ea, fronds first.
I wonder if his own body guards are armed?
Of course they are. He probably is too– you forget, it’s about keeping the plebeians and proletariats away from the weapons.
Now see, that’s a poor grasp of history.
Caligula’s bodyguards, the Praetorian Guard, were armed to the teeth. They assassinated him, rather painfully, as I recall.
Good point. My history is getting kinda rusty. But do you expect a senator to expect to get shot up by his own guards in this day and age?
Stranger things have happened, Fastjack.
How many senior military officers has Kim Jong-Un sentenced to die, along with their families (including his own uncle), just because they disagreed with him?
Again, a great point. Although, I’d feel that’s both a shoe on the other foot and a situation where someone would have to be crazy enough to end that over-fed ape before he got done in. Wouldn’t know much about the sociological climate of Rome, but I’m not sure if Caligula had the whole terror worship aspect going for him– he might have, in which case, all we’re waiting for is history to repeat itself.
I think Caligula did have something like that going on. He had a reputation, earned or not, for being a rapacious creature, going after the daughters of Roman citizens.
I keep hoping this jackass and people like him will find an opportunity to really make fools of themselves in a public venue like national TV, where they can’t take it back.
Something like that seekrit squirrel video of Romney at a dinner party – something that they just can’t take back. That’s my little dream.
It’s people like these who instill a strong desire in me to go get a gun, just to piss them off.
ban Knives, Bats, Bricks, Rocks, Screwdrivers, Wrenches, Cars…
Hell, just ban murder! That should do the trick.
Be careful what you wish for:British Police Call On Nation To ‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife’ As ‘Knife Violence’ Continues.
And, no, that’s not the Onion.
Australia banned the sales of knives to those under 18 back in 2013.
I expect cricket bats are next.
There have been at least 12 reported suicides related to internet bullying over the last couple of years, mostly teens and a vast majority are girls. I’m curious; should we eliminate our freedom of speech in order to save these teens from killing themselves over Facebook bullshit and having their drunken pictures pasted all over Instagram and Imgur?
Actually, many states do have limits on the type of speech used in these situations. There are Internet bullying laws or policies in every state. (http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/)
Certainly aware of bullying laws…but why stop there? If it saves just one life, why have a First Amendment at all?
Star chamber interrogations/trials and allowing the police unlimited power for search and seizure could also theoretically save lives. So how about we throw out the 4th and 5th Amendments, too?
(Yes, that is sarcasm above.)
I think it has been shown that there is a difference between limiting speech and eliminating the First Amendment are two totally different things. You can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, you can’t tease someone mercilessly until they kill themselves, or at least without being held accountable for your actions. I think this is a pretty reasonable limit.
The argument that current gun legislation is ineffectual so “F” it, let’s go balls to the wall and hand out free guns to everyone is also a pretty poor argument. I’m sure like Jonn says, it would be best if we could all talk to each other as adults, and sit down and maybe hash something out. Would it be best that we enforce (possibly much more strictly) the current gun laws/permitting procedures we already have? Probably. Maybe we should ask ourselves as responsible gun owners what steps we are prepared to take to prevent guns falling into the hands of criminals.
I do believe as responsible gun owners we should be part of the solution in preventing tragedies like these from happening in the future. It seems to me that the most prevalent type weapon used in these attacks are handguns, typically higher capacity semi-automatic handguns. I personally own quite a few of these, but I am willing to at least hear out someone’s (anyone’s?) ideas on reasonable solutions to prevent further unnecessary loss of lives. At the very least we should allow the issue to be debated, and not be over before it even begins. Nothing changes without compromise from both sides.
The courts have similarly ruled over the years that neither free speech nor firearms ownership is absolute, DrKnow.
The classic examples of the former fall into the health/safety area – e.g., inciting a riot, yelling “fire” in a theater, etc. . . . . The classic examples of the former are the prohibitions of fully automatic weapons.
O’Malley isn’t arguing for any kind of a rational discussion here. He’s obliquely arguing for an outright ban. And he’s doing it by avoiding the issue at hand and bringing up non sequiturs – just like you’re doing here.
You intentionally avoided answering Claymore’s question by bringing up an inappropriate example – e.g., an area of free speech law that it appears the SCOTUS has yet to specifically consider, and which is quite legally questionable. One might call the use of such an inappropriate example a red herring/non sequitur if done intentionally.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2010spring/law/357c/001/Cyberbully/supreme-court-student-speech-cases.html
http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/government/will-supreme-court-consider-cyberbullying/
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2014/11/supreme_court_declines_review.html
Don’t lecture anyone here about “adult discussion”. You’re the one avoiding any form of rational discussion and trying instead to lead the discussion into unrelated areas through the use of irrelevant examples.
Dr Know-Nothing,
First of all, in response to your non-sequetor, ad-absurdum argument about free speech, SCOTUS said that you cannot yell “fire” FALSELY in a crowded theater. Note the key word in this argument, “FALSELY, Dr-idiot-In-Chief. SO that means that you CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theater, if the circumstance warrants. Back up and try again, Dr-Vacuous.
And Hondo, I expected better of you. I expected you to catch that immediately and use it to beat Dr-Know-Nothing over the head with it, as well as destroying all his other Blather.
Can’t call ’em “arguments”. That’s usually based on fact, or well-reasoned opinion. So far, I see neither coming from any of this blatherskype’s orifices.
Call it an irrational pet peeve of mine, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT when people attempt to use the “fire”/”theater” argument WITHOUT INCLUDING THE “FALSELY”. If they did, it would destroy there argument immediately before they even started.
Now I need to take a walk and calm down before going back to work. . . . . lower my BP. . . . . wish I had a drink. . . . (f**king cocksucking idiotic ignorant poor excuse for a non intelligent upright bipedal semi hominid ossified cranial cavity. . . . )
Woodman, sorry for forgetting the “falsely” part. It either slipped my mind, or I assumed that it was a given.
True. My assumption was that he was referring to doing so falsely. However, he didn’t explicitly so state.
There are a few cases where even true speech may legitimately be made criminal. But the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example isn’t one of them.
I didn’t answer Claymore’s question because I assumed he was asking a rhetorical question, as well as being a bit of an ass (Still love the guy).
As for MOM and the rest who just want to ban guns, I think they make a stupid and idiotic argument too. But I am moved by Jonn’s suggestion of let’s sit down as adults and have a conversation about the issue. There’s no reason to get bent out of shape about these things, but maybe if everyone sits down we can hash something out. At least it’s a start, and really won’t hurt anybody. It’s ridiculous that neither side of this argument can sit down with the other without it becoming a huge problem.
I’d love to start this conversation (and maybe we already have). I totally agree with Old Trooper’s comment that his carrying a gun no way infringes on anyone else. It absolutely doesn’t. However, at the same time me driving a car doesn’t step on anyone else’s rights (I’m mean, unless you consider adding to rush hour traffic). Nor does it matter to anyone else that I got married. But for both of these activities I had to go downtown and get a license (I know these can’t be perfect examples as they are not listed in the Bill of Rights, but we have to start somewhere). Thoughts?
So, you’re recommending the licensing and registering of guns and their handlers, the way we do cars and drivers?
It is something that should be discussed. I think a good first step would be tightening up the enforcement of current laws and regulations. Stiffer penalties, or possible penalties that fail to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. To top it off I want more gun sellers to take a hard look at who they are personally selling to and go, damn, this dude looks crazy, no gun for you! Have you seen the haircut that Dylann Roof had? That guy LOOKED like a psycho.
If licensing and registration were used with gun owners the way it is for vehicles, then you would have to prove your fitness to handle a gun to the state, before you could legally own one — so the gun shops would only have to do the same thing the car dealers do: ask for a copy of your license and insurance.
Why should someone have to prove to the state they’re “competent” to exercise ANY right guaranteed by the Constition, PN? Do you really want to advocate that? Doesn’t that essentially give the state veto power over those rights?
Last time I checked, no license is required to join a particular church, or to stand on the street and speak one’s mind. Ditto to choose those with whom you will associate.
Hondo, I was going to attempt to explain that while car registration works with very little problem, gun registration wouldn’t work because a sizeable portion of the government doesn’t support gun ownership in the first place. The government could therefore use registration to effectively deny people the right to own guns, period. I didn’t get the chance to have that conversation, however, because of the regulars swarming like hornets. I’ll have to wait to have that conversation with DrKnow another day, perhaps.
I would still disagree.
The 10th Amendment arguably grants the states the power to regulate car registration. The 2nd Amendment FORBIDS infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the state.
The Constitutional “hurdle” for a state regulating the former is thus quite low. In theory, a state or locality could outlaw private vehicle ownership or operation in certain areas or completely. The Constitutional “hurdle” for a state in doing the latter (or in abridging any specific right guaranteed by the Constitution), though not infinitely high, is MUCH higher. That generally requires demonstrating a real danger to the rest of society.
Of course. But DrKnow wanted to explore ideas. Laws are written by men; they can be unwritten, changed, amended…whatever men wish to do with them. Therefore, I was willing to explore the idea of registration of guns. Which I already have. And come to conclusion that laws and regulations, in and of themselves, would only make the matter worse, because of a bias that we have already seen at work in places like Chicago. If you are biased against a law, and hold a position where you will have influence on said law, you are far more likely to hinder the law than enforce it. Which is what I was going to attempt to show to DrKnow.
OK. Took what you wrote as actually equating the two cases in terms of the state’s authority, and had to express my disagreement.
PN-
Just getting a chance to go over some of the posts after I had to leave. This I think is the most interesting area of conversation and would love the opportunity to dig more into it.
Two problems with what you say here.
First: you want the government to base decisions regarding restricting basic Constitutional rights on someone’s physical appearance? Not on demonstrated conduct? Yeah, I got a problem with that.
Second: what “tightening up of enforcement” can you think of that would have prevented Roof’s case? He was already prohibited from purchasing a firearm – he had to lie on 2 of the questions on the AFT 4473 (he was under felony indictment or information, plus he had abused controlled substances in the past). Both lies were already Federal felonies. As a practical matter, how do you propose to modify the system to prevent someone willing to commit a felony to purchase a gun from a dealer from doing that?
I didn’t say I wanted the government to limit the sales, I said the individual dealers. I know I have backed out of business deals with people because the other person just didn’t give me the right vibe. I think if someone came into my store wearing a bunch of “white pride” stuff I would probably just decline to sell him anything.
As for the tightening/enforcement of the current laws in place, I think this is a perfect example of what needs to be fixed. Why was it so easy for Roof to lie on this form and walk out of the shop with a gun? What can be done to prevent this in the future? Why are there not people being held responsible for this lapse? National databases are only as good as the information that is held within them, so local and federal law enforcement agencies (as well as community mental health agencies, etc.) need to be ensuring that all available data is made available. You shouldn’t have the ability to lie on one of these forms. I think this is the first and most obvious step to take.
So, what’s to prevent him from using an alias – after obtaining a fake ID for a name he knows is legally “clean”?
At some point, absent a comprehensive database of citizens/residents backed by biometric ID (e.g., fingerprints, iris patterns, DNA, etc . . . ), verification of identity ultimately rests on someone (a) telling the truth, or (b) presenting an identity document. The latter can often if not always be forged (some laughably easily). And absent the database I posited above, lying in one form or another (false identity, baldface lying on the form) former cannot be prevented.
I am not willing to trust the government with a comprehensive database of every swinging d*ck and bouncing b**bie who lives in the USA, with compulsory entry of PII along biometric ID data. I simply do not want to dangle that potential for abuse in front of any future demagogue who might get elected.
As far as refusing to sell based on a “feeling” – ever heard about discrimination lawsuits?
“He said he didn’t like my looks, so he wouldn’t sell me a handgun. I think it was because I’m (name racial/ethnic group of choice). And I’m filing a lawsuit.”
Kinda hard for a business owner to counter that, particularly if the customer is of a different race or ethnicity. And even attempting to do so can cost enough to put a small business operating on a narrow margin out of business.
DR. KNOW, Et Alii:
I refuse to pay the high prices to barbers, and anyway, on my pension, I could never afford to.
SOOOO – – – ,
I stand in front of the bathroom mirror and cut my own hair.
And it looks like it.
But, so what?
I’m an old geezer, who’s balding, and I live alone.
I did my time in Viet Nam, was a cop in civilian life, and I habitually go armed everywhere, all of the time.
Oh, yes, one other thing – – – ,
Prior to my years as a soldier serving honorably in the United States Army, a juvenile court had me spend my adolescence locked up with the criminally insane in a state mental hospital, complete with the nightmarish horrors of repeated electric shock treatments and physical abuse from inmates and staff.
I reckon some folks here at the “THIS AIN’T HELL” web site probably think I’m still insane!
Mox nix.
I have a lot of fun with that tale.
Like the song on radio says,
“It just goes to show, you never can tell.”
That haircut? Oh, really? Are you serious? Every Amish kid in Ohio and Pennsylvania has that haircut, you moron!
The first thing I learned from the two VERY ordinary looking dudes who held me up with a revolver on the back steps of my apartment in 1986 is that THERE IS NO CRIMINAL TYPE, you imbecile.
Ask any police detective. He’ll tell you the same thing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CRIMINAL TYPE.
And haircuts? Seriously? Have you even SEEN Amish boys?
You just put yourself into that category of ‘so stupid you don’t even know you’re alive’.
Thanks for playing doctor, you know-nothing.
Oh, yeah – those two got nothing from me, and ran like the hounds of hell were on their heels. They almost fell over each other trying to get down those steps.
Yes, I believe that anyone rocking a haircut that peaked in popularity in the 15th century should have a thorough once (or twice) over before they are sold a handgun.
dr. knows-nothing, so far, you have done nothing but display willful ignorance and intentional prejudice.
This is a list of some of the most notorious serial killers of recent memory, ALL OF WHOM BLENDED INTO SOCIIETY.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=60531&cpage=1#comment-2570515
Those are only a few. Are you going to start a witch hunt now? You already have a great head start on that, you incredible moron.
Neither driving a car or getting married are rights specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution. Both Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are. Restricting a specific Constitutional right has always received greater court scrutiny than regulation of conduct not so specifically protected by the Constitution. The problem of preventing gun violence while allowing firearms ownership may be what certain academic circles now refer to as a “wicked problem”. Such a problem is one that has no effective solution. Given human nature (e.g., humans are by nature sometimes violent creatures), the only way I can see to prevent the misuse of guns by criminals is to ensure the absolute removal of them from society. This in turn would require the state to accept responsibility for protecting the populace against all forms of casual violence, as it would no longer be possible for the populace to do so for themselves. As a consequence, a police state that IMO would make any dictatorial regime in history appear to be anarchy – along with a police apparatus of truly mind-boggling scope – would be required. This in turn has massive potential for abuse, requiring a huge amount of trust in the government in power. Having been in Korea not terribly many years after Park Chung-hee’s assassination, I have no wish to live in such a state. And the authority and regulation there was mild compared to what we’d IMO see under such a regime as would be required under this scenario. The alternative is a free society where people are allowed to defend themselves. Unfortunately, it is not possible a priori to predict with any certainty which “crackpots” are dangerous and which are not – unless you err on the side of caution and essentially outlaw eccentricity, and incarcerate anyone who deviates from the norm. Sorry, I don’t want to live under such a society either – with or without firearms. That leaves what we have now: private firearms ownership, but with the occasional “nutjob” that goes off the deep end and commits murder. The incidence of these is… Read more »
Using the yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a false example of limiting speech, because it is a safety issue, based on the intent of the person shouting “fire”. Is it because there is a fire? Then would it be illegal? No, it goes to intent. If a person yells it, knowing there is no fire, there intent is to cause a panic. If I’m carrying a gun and I am not threatening, or brandishing, the gun, then my intent is not to engage in criminal activity. If I’m carrying a gun and I pull it out and threaten to kill someone if they don’t give me their wallet, then my intent is to do criminal activity.
My carrying a gun in no way infringes on the rights of anyone else; so why should it be illegal or restricted when the Constitution clearly says it is my right to do so (that whole “shall” not be infringed, not “may” not be infringed. 2 definitely different meanings)? Your comfort level doesn’t trump my rights. It’s not hard or complicated. Not like the anti-gunners and leftists/communists want you to believe it is.
Was that adult enough for you?
I have no problem with compromise. If anybody could come up with a solution where giving up my guns would prevent shootings like the one in the church, I’d be the first one in line to be part of it. But my argument — the argument of every legitimate gun owner — is that the solution we’re being offered won’t solve anything, it will only make the government’s job easier to prosecute, SINCE ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS. In the meanwhile, every law-abiding citizen is at the mercy of the well-armed criminal population. That’s not a solution, it’s a nightmare — one I don’t wish to be part of. Everybody keeps talking about compromise, but nobody has been able to dance on the head of that pin. Believe me, I lie awake at night thinking about what a solution to these shootings would look like. If I ever think of anything, I promise I will do everything in my power to bring it to the attention of the authorities. But there doesn’t seem to be a solution to this problem, short of surrendering our rights in one form or the other.
I have a problem with compromise. Compromise is the NY SAFE Act or the laws that the Golden State, NJ,CT, MD have. Compromise is needing a reason in order to obtain a concealed carry permit. Compromise is no open carry and having to lock a gun up in your house, unloaded or partially disassembled. Compromise is you have to have a firearm ID card to purchase ammo or go through a background check for the same. There needs to be a line drawn about how far we will compromise.
Just an FYI – Holmes’ “fire in a crowded theater” test from Schenck v. U.S. was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio. People really need to stop citing that idiotic opinion from a censorious justice who should be rightly remembered for his abominable opinion in Buck v. Bell, where he enthusiastically approved of forced sterilizations – “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”
Actually, it’s not clear it does. Falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater may fall under Brandenberg v. Ohio’s “speech that incites imminent lawless action” test in that it creates a public disturbance or danger. I believe intentionally doing those may be unlawful in many if not most jurisdictions.
Oh, why go halfway? Just repeal the US Constitution and the entire Bill of Rights and all the Amendments thereto.
In fact, let’s elect Caligula as Dictator Imperialis. Then all you soldiers can go spend your time picking up seashells on all our coasts.
Bill of Rights…so overrated. Freedom is hard.
Exactly. And over the last fifty years or so, the scales have become unbalanced — we want all of our rights, and eschewed our responsibilities. The gun violence we’re seeing today starts long before somebody picks up a gun. The situation is rapidly devolving into a choice of the right to own guns OR protecting irresponsible people from themselves — but not both.
Freedom is only hard if you are a child in an adult body.
Reductio ad absurdum at its finest. This is why we can’t have an adult conversation.
A lack of a sense of humor and lack of the ability to detect sarcasm are not your strong points, are they, dr snow?
I’d rather have a substantive conversation, X-phtwo
No, you want to feed your ego by overshadowing everyone else’s opinion with yours. Humor and cynicism are both valid means of counterpoint.
Ok, let’s try again; where in history has the throttling of rights in response to criminal behavior ever resulted in the elimination of said behavior?
This question is too hard, Claymore.
What about the almost total disappearance of Quaaludes. With the chemical compound that was the main ingredient being made illegal, the drug has all bu disappeared.
If the point was to eliminate illicit drugs by making one particular component difficult to obtain, they should try that with meth…oh, wait…
How about you ANSWER
As I was saying, before I bumped myself HOW ABOUT YOU ANSWER CLAYMORE’S QUESTION, DR. KNOW-NOTHING?
Actually, it appears the rise of meth and others as the “trendy” drugs of choice – which, I believe began in the 1990s – coincides with the waning popularity of quaaludes that started about that time. The drug was made illegal in the US in 1982, but continued to be manufactured in Mexico and imported for roughly a decade – until it fell out of favor in the US and the US market dried up in the early 1990s.
Waning popularity, not lack of ability to manufacture the drug, caused its scarcity today. If quaaludes experience a resurgence in popularity among the illicit drug scene, the Mexican manufacturers will return – just like they turned from quaaludes to meth/MDMA/others when those drugs started to get more popular.
Popular illegal drugs tend to be cyclic… heroin followed by hallucinogens followed by coke followed by heroin again followed by meth followed by the current synthetic pot drugs… in general it’s an upper-downer cycle that runs about 10 years on average.
The obvious answer was the outlawed 32oz. Big Gulp. People in NYC so skinny now! Yea Bloomberg!
“The argument that current gun legislation is ineffectual so “F” it, let’s go balls to the wall and hand out free guns to everyone is also a pretty poor argument.”
Cura te ipsum
Are you sure you meant that instead of ‘futue te ipsum’?
The trick to an adult conversation is to not belittle the person you’re conversing with, as I’ve seen you do repeatedly now. It’s liberals like you that make liberals like me align themselves more with independents day by day. I haven’t seen ONE liberal post here other than myself who isn’t a total caricature of the party.
We did.
Some of the left wingers in this nation do want to eliminate the 1st amendment in all its glory. From BS qualifiers like challenging who is or isn’t a reporter and represents the press on over to the idea that religion needs to lose its rights of protection because religion is icky. In between there are other gates that they want to erect like campaign finance reform where the government can tell you who is or isn’t authorized to form speaking voices for the people or that the current idea of “hate speech/violence filled” speech needs to be suppressed or arrested. See the arguments about Fox (or Faux depending on your political bend) news and scary right wing nuts on the radio spewing neo-confederacy stuff. Hell you cruise the DemoUnderground and if you haven’t seen that being talked about then you are missing a whole bunch of scary fascist and statist behavior by people that vote.
We get it via Claymore’s alert every Tuesday. It’s a cesspool that is difficult to wade through because there is no sewer to receive it. It stagnates, and is filled with pests.
Once again you Right Wing Gun Nutz miss the whole point. What we need are more Defense Free Zones. If criminals didn’t need guns to commit crime we would all be safer.
It is all of you gun toting wacko’s that force them to up the level of violence. Barney only had one round in his shirt pocket and he was an LEO. The sheriff didn’t even carry a gun. There were no mass killings in Mayberry.
Everyone was happy and at peace. Maybe it was because nobody on that show was married. Not one of them, except Otis of course but he stayed drunk. I think I stumbled onto something here……..
Aunt Bea was a widow, you know.
Maybe she took him to Mt. Pilot and offed him.
Yeah all the effort Marty put forth has kept the streets of Baltimore Safer. Wonder how the “Rain Tax” is working out?
I read that the new Gov Larry hogan told old O’Mangina to piss off and the first day in office, repealed that crap.
Newly-elected Governor Hogan (who announced that he has cancer last night) did away with the rain tax as soon as he got in office.
And Master Chief tells Marty to “kiss his royal red Irish ass” in 3, 2, 1….
OC
I bet Marty can’t name the last time an “assault rifle” was used in a crime.
I’m wondering why he’s twisting up his man panties over “assault rifles”, when the little chucklehead used a pistol. It’s like your wife cheating on you with a guy in the next town, so you decide to punch your neighbor. Not really linked to anything, but it sounds good to the mouth breathers.
Samuel Adams must have been a seer. Obviously he was thinking of Marty-boi here when he said that nearly 239 years ago.
Better honorably dead than the winner’s prize, as far as I’m concerned. Loosely quoting Machiavelli, but the quote fits.
I love both of those comments! Thank you for posting those.
I’m sure he really meant to say “One gun is worth more than all the liberal pantywaists combined”.
I challenge Miss Marty to refer to the FBI’s statistics on Defensive Gun Use in America. How many innocent lives are his hurt feelings worth?
Yes, I’m sure my life actually IS worth more than all the guns combined in the US, which is why I favor ownership of one.
If I ever get carjacked, I’ll blame Marty O’Malley for it.
I hate to invoke Lar’s name but this is too perfect. He comes on here, misses the thread dedicated to the Charleston murders and accuses us of being only concerned with preserving gun rights in a totally different thread. As usual, he was grossly wrong but here we have a wonderful example–again–of a liberal snot not wasting a good tragedy. Coupled with the gun-grab rhetoric is the Confederate flag issue. What next, ban shaved heads? MOM is out of his cotton-pickin’ mind, desperate for attention and name recognition. The other day he talked about his aim to rebuild America’s cities when, after more than 20 years as a Baltimore city councilman, mayor, and governor of MD, that shithole just got shittier. And that life he wants to save? It does not apply to babies in their mothers’ wombs. Gaaaaaaad damit!
You have to request Lar’s just right.
Lar’s I herby summon you and your two dollar words to put your two sense into the mix.
plz
But did you sacrifice any of the Constitution on the alter of Political Correctness while summoning him?
If not . . . it’s “Waiting for Godot” time.
I was thinking old Starbucks cups arranged to form the Illuminati’s symbol.
Let me try to summon the little snot-spined fartluster, HEEEERE DUMMY, DUMMY, DUMMY!
Nothing yet perhaps some live bait!
Two things I love about the way Lars blustered in here the other day.
1.) He berated us for talking about the gun control aspect of the Charleston shootings, yet the commentating going on was in regards to a post about O’Malley capitalizing on the gun control aspect of the Charleston shootings. [irony on]
2.) Lars stated that, rather than concern himself with the gun control issues, he was busy researching how the shooter was influenced by right wing propaganda to the degree that he killed innocent black people (preceding sentence is paraphrased). And somehow, that made him implicitly better than us.
Well here’s a newsflash for Lars. The internet it full of stupid shit. There’s websites out there that blame all of society’s ills on black people. There’s websites that blame all of society’s ills on white rednecks. Some sites claim that a lack of a sense of irony is a trait of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Some even say stupid shit like, “Death threats made on Obama are up over 400% compared to any other president.” To wade through it all, one must be able to think critically and not simply just believe stupid shit because it conforms to your worldview.
Critical thinking seems to be a skillset that the Charleston murderer, and others that post here named (hint hint), lack. [irony off]
“A single American life is worth more than all the guns in the United States,”
Maybe Marty could explain the rise in infant death in Maryland while he was in charge…I mean we’re talking each life worth billions of dollars when discussing a murder but under Marty’s watch more babies have died each year by a factor of 50 than people that were killed in that church. I don’t recall any policy expending a trillion dollars to save those 400 plus babies each year…
Maybe Marty should refrain from idiotic hyperbole, after all he’s clearly lying because he doesn’t believe that for a moment. Better to offer an intellectual response Marty than what you’ve offered because your run at state government wasn’t nearly good enough for you to espouse such horseshit as this.
Of course he’s lying, VOV. He’s a leftist politician running for office. It’s what they do – and has been since FDR, if not before.
MOM can start by asking his security detail to disarm. No guns means no guns, right?
Oh, another thing. Being the man of action that he is, he can refuse to attend any political event at which a gun will be present, whether the gun be possessed by a gov’t agent or a private citizen. He can campaign from his home office. The result will be the same, anyway.
He can take off his shirt and go up to New York unarmed and capture those 2 escaped convicts! #WhatWouldPutinDo #FukYeah
The underlying creed for leftist gun control freaks, is that they do not believe that individuals have a right of self defense and the means with which to perform it.
And yet, there are so many, many states with self-defense and castle doctrine statutes on their books.
It must just confound the living daylights out of the lefties that we who think for ourselves and are willingly responsible for our OWN welfare retain the right to defend ourselves from harm. And no one can tell us we can’t.
There should be a one word response to anything the former Mayor/Governor says:
“I’ll save lives by limiting gun violence, blah, blah,blah.”
Baltimore.
“It will make our streets safer, stop violence on innocent people and businesses.”
Baltimore.
“A single American life is worth more than all the guns in the United States.”
Baltimore.
Everything this hellhole of a city has been going through can have a great deal traced back to his handiwork here.
Substitute ‘Chicago’ for ‘Baltimore’ and you have the same thing.
Most likely, you could do that with Los Angeles, too.
Yep.
Don’t forget New York.
BREAKING NEWS:
US gun owners vote.
O’Malley has 0 % chance of being POTUS after above comment.
He needs to be reminded, the right to bear arms (2nd Adm) is worth dying for … Many have paid the ultimate sacrifice for this and other higher orders.
He is clueless!
“I do not believe in the possession of firearms, except for the police and military.” – Michael Dukakis
I remember seeing that on the cover of “American Rifleman” and GHW Bush handily beat him in that election, Dukakis’s poll standing plummeted after that comment!
Master Chief, dr. knows-nothing thinks there is such a thing as a criminal type, based on Roof’s sugarbowl haircut.
My personal experience has proven him wrong, based on the two very ordinary-looking guys (with one revolver) who tried to hold me up on the back steps of my apartment some years back.
Which of us is correct?
I am.
Close-set eyes? Physically ugly? Perhaps a different race?
Took you two little words to blow what little potential credibility you may have had. Back to the basement before Mom finds out you’re watching porn, too!
LOL. Ok ok, sorry. Had to poke him once.
“Him” is a highly attractive “her”, son
Shoot, forgot! My apologies again! Totally foot in mouth there! Sorry EX-PH2.
Fuck you and the rat you rode in on, knownothing, you incredible moron.
No, you’re wrong, knows-nothing.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CRIMINAL TYPE. Get that into that dormant organ you have for a brain.
Even if your last name is Clinton?
Sorry. Had to ask. 🙂
All criminals are douchebags, but not all douchebags are (convicted) criminals.
I actually agree with Dr. Know. anyone with that haircut should never be allowed around a gun or sharp instrument.
They’re all in my neighborhood and they play soccer in the street after they do their chores.
Most of them barely come to the top of the tires on my chariot.
Exactly, don’t give kids, or the mentally impaired firearms.
Define “kids.”
There used to be high school shooting clubs all across the country 50 or 60 years ago.
I got my first BB gun when I was 8. Got my first firearm when I was 12. Never shot anybody, either. And I’m not all that old, either. This was in the 90s–in California, no less!
Ya gotta admire their tenacity, or something. I don’t like it, but must respect their ability to beat their little drums and stay on message in spite of everything.
Like needing to “compromise.” Current law is already a compromise between the extremes in the so-called gun debate. (I would argue that having a gun debate is also a compromise, but that’s an different issue.)
The lefty side is that no one should own guns, they should all be confiscated and thus allow only criminals to possess them. The opposite side from that would be that everyone should be forced to own guns. No one is arguing that position. The “right wing extremists” are arguing the middle ground – that only those who want to own guns should own guns, with enough restrictions that they actually look quite a bit left of center on the issue.
So, compromising between the extreme leftist position and the left of center position results in even more restrictions, farther left than things are now. But why not? That tactic have worked successfully for the lefties for about a century now.
Seems to me that a guy named Barry (no, not the current POTUS – the one that SHOULD have been elected POTUS instead of LBJ) had an appropriate comment about strenuously defending freedom being appropriate behavior. Or something like that. (smile)
The punishment for being a law-abiding citizen in the UK is that now, there is a law on the books that forbids you to defend yourself from any kind of attack whatsoever, even during a home invasion, because you might hurt the criminal.
This is not a joke. It is a law that was passed over there a short while ago. You can be prosecuted for defending yourself. And we do know that the crime rate in the UK is higher than it is here.
That is what anti-gun legislation can lead to. Not a joke.
The UK is all kinds of tits up right now. And that Tory sumbitch in office is the root of those problems, from what I hear.
Shit………….I am out of chips.
Pop some popocorn, Dave. It may be a long haul. We have Dr. Knows Nothing with us today.
Dr. Knows Nothing seems to think that there is such a thing as a criminal type. He has based this on Roof’s haircut, which is commonly called a sugarbowl haircut. So here are some serial killers who managed to hide in plain sight for a very long time. John Gacey – construction contractor, a gay man who invited young men to his home and then murdered them after having sex with them. I believe the total was 33 at last count and some are still unidentified. The Green River Killer – he turned out to be someone who worked in a pastry shop. His hobby was picking up prostitutes and murdering them. Ted Bundy – a popular candidate for political office, who hustled unsuspecting women and bludgeoned most of them to death, then threw their corpses into areas where they were least likely to be found. Some remains were so degraded, they were almost unidentifiable. No. of victims is 30 to 33, but may have been as high as 100, all white females. Jeff Dahmer – one of Milwaukee’s residents, who lured as many as 17 young men to his apartment and killed all but one, who managed to get away and alert the police. Dahmer not only murdered these men, he put their corpses into strange poses and shot Polaroids of them, and then kept the body parts in his fridge. He ate ome of them for dinner. My personal favorite: Jack the Ripper. Suspected now, after more than 100 yeers, to have been a member of Queen Victoria’s family who was a doctor. His victims were prostitutes, whom he dissected. The theatrical movie ‘From Hell’ was about the suspected murdered, and some years earlier, Michael Caine played the Scotland Yard detective who tried to solve the case in a TV docudrama. Criminal types, all. Blended right in with society, every one of them, especially Ted Bundy. There are plenty of more recent examples of criminal types, like the son of a police chief in Cook County, IL, who lured two young men to a house he shared with… Read more »
How about my brother-in-law, who has full-sleeve tattoos on both arms, drives a rice rocket, and looks like the Hollywood archetype Asian gang member? Except for the fact that he’s a very nice guy with a steady job and a squeaky-clean record who’s active in his church and works his ass off to give his wife and stepson a good home, he’s clearly up to no good, right?
Yeah, Dr. KnowsNothing, let’s judge people based on their looks. That’s not at all similar to the mindset of that murderous little cocksucker in Charleston!
Clearly, he is a suspicious character!
So if we hade good gun laws = no more serial killers ever.
Gacey garroted his victims.
Bundy bludgeoned those women to death.
I believe the Green River Killer strangled his victims.
I think that was true of Dahmer, too.
And it’s believed that the Ripper didn’t kill the women he chosee at random before he dissected them. They were thought to have been alive when he did that to them.
Not a gun in the bunch.
The Zodiak Killer (never identified) did use a gun for some of his kills. He alternated between using a gun and using a knife. He’s the only one I’ve found so far that used a gun repeatedly.
That should be “ZodiaC” not “ZodiaK.” Sorry.
Yes, and he was the basis for the first ‘Dirty Harry’ film.
There were two who did use guns: Andrew Cunanan, who went on a shooting rampage that ended up in Florida where he shot Gianni Versace on his own doorstep with a stolen gun.
The other was white supremacist Benjamin Smith, who shot Ricky Byrdsong, a NWU basketball coach, outside his own home in Skokie, IL and then went through other neighborhoods in Skokie and wounded six Orthodox Jews, then killed Won Joon-Yoon, a Korean, in Bloomington, IL.
And then there was Charles Whitman, an ex-Marine, who shot and killed 16 people from his perch in the clock tower at the University of Texas, using rifles, pistols and a sawed-off shotgun.
For Charles Whitman, a tumor was found post-mortem in an area of his brain that may have governed emotions and impulse control. (Source, Wikipedia)
Mass murderers all.
So did David Berkowitz, AKA “Son of Sam”. But firearms don’t usually seem to be the weapon of choice for serial killers.
Berkowitz used one a them “assault” 5 shot revolvers (Charter Arms Bulldog)
There is a difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer. http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/killer_types.htm
Serial killers ARE mass murderers, you asshole. The only differentiation between the two is the length of time it takes to shoot up a grade school full of little kids, make people dig their own graves and then shoot them and/or bury them alive in those graves, and lure victims off the street to your apartment or house (Gacey, Dahmer) and/or car (Bundy, Green River Killer).
They are exactly the same thing. You are wrong.
No they’re not. Read the definitions.
They are exactly the same thing, you jackass. A serial killer has many victims over a period of time. A mass murderer takes all his victims as quickly as possible. Laurie Dann fit both definitions. They are exactly the same thing.
EX-PH2:
In this case, Dr. Know is correct.
The Behavior Analysis Unit of the FBI does define “Serial Killer” and “Mass Murderer” differently.
I myself sometimes engage in cereal killing, my favorite being hot cracked wheat topped with honey.
Also, if we were watching episodes of a television series, I could “kill” it for you by revealing the plot and/or surprise ending.
Beyond the fact that mass murderers and serial killers both kill multiple people for no socially acceptable reason, they have very little in common. The psych profiles, intelligence level, difficulty in catching, mental stability, and a host of other things usually are quite different.
Mack trucks and MG Midgets both transport people and things from point A to point B, but they are hardly the same.
Start with a few propositions:
1) Humans are inherently violent and violence will never be fully eliminated
2) Criminals by their nature will not follow laws, so attempting to restrain criminal behavior by passing a law inhibiting the actions of the law-abiding is futile.
3) No gun or owner database is legal or acceptable as they lead to governmental abuse.
4) The tool of a criminal is misused for its legal intent, therefore no restrictions on tools are logical, viz. “assault rifles”, high-capacity (define) magazines, etc.
5) Waiting periods inhibit the ability to obtain defense tools quickly, hence are unacceptable. Plus have been shown ineffective.
6) Law aiding concealed carry permit holders have been shown to be more law-abiding than the police, so should be exempt from further restriction.
OK, given these propositions: Soemione on the anti-gun side like Lars or Dr.Know – what can you proose that would be effective and not adversely impact only law-abiding citizens?
Hold on, I am not anti-gun. I do believe in keeping nuttos away from guns though, and believe there has to be some solution out there if people sit down and talk about it. As for your starting propositions, I think you’re kinda off base and need to reign it in a bit.
It is inconceivable that the end game is anything but NO GUNS in the hands of private citizens. There really is no point in discussing lesser options because lesser options always go one way. Were it not for that pesky 2nd Amendment, I have no doubt that this would have been the administration to seek to collect the guns, or start the process, anyway. Look. If one death is one too many, and we know that a bad gun or nut job will ALWAYS find a way to obtain a gun illegally, or that a good guy and sane guy who obtained a gun legally can later turn bad or go nuts, it is only logical that all guns must go. It may take another 50 years or more but that is the strategy and the goal.
Again, you’re wrong, dr knows-nothing at all.
Humans are apex predators.
We have been successful predators for thousands of years. There is plenty of forensic evidence to prove this in the contents of garbage dumps, coprolites, and kitchen middens going back many thousands of years. The Bog People preserved in Irish peat bogs show the treatment of human sacrifice.
We prey on other humans the same way chimpanzees prey on neighboring clans, and people like Jeffrey Dahmer prove that we can and do still cannabilize our own species.
You continue to prove your own wilful ignorance and prejudice. Do you want to go over that crap you’re cranking out ad nauseum again?
Keep it up, you stupid ass, you are treading on extremely thin ice around here.
So, we can put you in the “do something, anything” column, because enforcement of the current laws is just too hard.
Something? Yes. Anything? No. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. It just takes a critical mass of people pushing for it to be accomplished. I would hate to see all guns banned. I don’t believe that is a good solution. Yet, if people don’t sit down an talk, I believe that it could come to that, potentially. It’s the people who won’t sit down and talk or compromise that are left out of the discussion altogether. And I don’t believe an attitude of it’s too hard so let’s not do anything is helpful.
Okay, doctor. Let’s chat. Have a proposal? do you agree that, ideally, there should be no guns in private hands?
No. Pretty sure I have stated that multiple times now.
The keyword was ideally. So, if it were in your power to rid the US, if not the world, of guns, you would not do so? Is that right? If so, why not?
Let’s start a witch hunt, shall we?
I volunteer to turn dr. knows-nothing at all into a newt.
Anyone have any other ideas?
BURN him!!!
(he turned me into a newt, but I got better)
So we’re back on the mental health discussion. Except there isn’t one, because two reasons: a.) our mental health system in this country is piecemeal at best, and b.) it takes a crazy amount of work to get even one adult (children are easier) committed for extended mental health treatment.
So who bridges the gap to address mental health in this country? The AMA? Not a bad choice — except for one thing. The AMA is virulently anti-gun, and has tried several times to aid the government’s attempt to regulate guns by making them a HEALTH ISSUE. So. Anything else?
And who is to judge who is and is not mentally ill? According to the AMA and the psych association’s take on mental states, everyone in this country and almost the entire world could be deemed ‘mentally ill’ for simply expressing real emotions like anger at being let go from a job.
Being angry about something like that is normal. Going postal and shooting up the place is not. That’s the difference between ‘mentally ill’ and NOT ‘mentally ill’, but the pill dispensers don’t want to let that get in their way.
So who is to determine who is and is not mentally ill?
And what is it, in reality?
Why is it such so socially incorrect to actually mourn a loss? In this country, it is becoming less and less socially acceptable to express genuine grief.
It makes you suspect. You are now supposed to stifle your real emotions and just suck it up, buttercup.
There are people who would dose you into oblivion if you’re sad because you’ve unexpectedly lost a family member or a beloved pet or your job.
OK, you say you’re not anti-gun… what propositions do you feel are a off-base and why? You wanted an adult discussion… let’s hear it.
“It’s the people who won’t sit down and talk or compromise that are left out of the discussion altogether.”
Well, it looks like talking is out. I invited him. You invited him. Hey, maybe he’s researching the issue, googling “How to conduct and win an argument with an NRA supporter” or some such thing.
2/17- I’m happy to go over ideas. I have already brought up some points, you got to scroll back up towards the top. More or less I believe both sides will have to find some area of compromise, because without it either two things will happen, 1) nothing and we continue to have tragic events like this and sandy hook take place or 2) the eventual removal of guns from our public population, which is a travesty in and of itself, and could lead to horrible consequences .
Compromise? What does that mean to you? We are already way left of center, by law, on gun rights.
The US Constitution is quite clear on the subject. The polar opposites of the argument would be that no one should be armed vs everyone should be armed. The compromise position is pretty simple – those who don’t want to be armed are not compelled to be and those who wish to be armed are allowed to be armed.
It really is that simple. But, since one side insists that irrelevant, emotional stuff be injected into the discussion, the word compromise cannot even be defined appropriately.
So simple, so logical, so elegantly stated. Thank you.
Perfect, OWB.
Give me an example of one law not currently in force that would have prevented the shooting in Charleston, or New Town, or Aurora, or Tuscon. Just one.
Jonn that is exactly part of the problem, and potentially a large part of the solution. By enforcing the laws we do have on the books and making sure that nuts can’t slip through the cracks, we can prevent many of these crazies/criminals from acquiring the firearms in the first place or at least making it substantially more difficult. When background checks are preformed there is no reason for these people to slip though. Straw purchasers should be prosecuted, harshly. I know as it stands it sounds like a bit of an unfunded mandate to preform all of these tasks, but I believe it can and should be done.
But you’re saying that we have to do “something”, so what should we do?
Well, according to multiple news stories today – if we just ban the confederate flag….
/sarc
I’ve purchased all of my firearms legally with background checks. I don’t feel it was an undo burden put upon me (the extra $10 was annoying but I look at it like the $0.05 deposit on my beer cans) and believe that if we tighten up the back ground check process, you can prevent many people who should own guns from squiring them.
You just said that there are sufficient laws, now you want to “tighten up” background checks. How would that have prevented any of the shootings? 2% of criminals admit that they bought their guns at gun shows. I’ve never bought a gun at a gun show without a background check. How do you think further burdens on legitimate gun buyers would have prevented any of the shootings I mentioned above.
Here’s a hint, the phrase you’re looking for is; make government do their jobs. you don’t need to restrict gun sales any further if the government does what they should be doing.
I think we are on the exact same page. Make the background check system work, right? As for an example of how it could have prevented a crime, Dylann Roof purchased his gun by lying on his background check paperwork. Had the database been complete and up to date, he should have been flagged. Someone should be held responsible for this error.
Yes, we’ll start with you. You refuse to answer simple, direct questions. You change the subject because you have no answer. I will henceforth blame all gun violence on you.
That’s kinda my point. New town could have been prevented if Mom had a locked gun safe. Aurora could have been prevented if Doc had put him in the NICS. Tucson could have been prevented if police had arrested him any of the times they were called on his antics. So we don’t need any more gun laws. Right?
DrKnow, I am kinda stupid, so maybe I am not getting this right… but it appears to me that all of the proposed “sitting down and talking”, and “compromising” ,seems to boil down to: enforcing existing law, and holding government (and agents of) accountable in regards to those same laws. Is that it? I have heard that before somewhere… can’t put my finger on it… sounds eerily familiar though…
Jonn, we both agree that the laws we have need to be enforced, as them alone could help prevent tragedies as they were intended. I also believe it’s worthwhile to sit down and have a conversation about what else can be done. How can we keep guns out of those that are not capable of handling them? Should training be required with the purchase of a firearm? What are your suggestions, or are things just fine as they stand?
I don’t think it’s worthwhile to sit down and have a conversation about new laws that won’t be enforced, but maybe that’s just me.
I’m annoyed by his stereotyping people as criminals based on the way they look.
But it’s even worse that he refused to address that issue, which is prejudice (pre-judging someone) on his part. Instead, he changed the subject. Does that sound familiar?
I doubt, therefore, that dr. knows-nothing at all has any argument or proposal of any substance.
We’ve seen this before, haven’t we? If you can’t win the argument, change the subject.
Are you so upset because you have the same haircut? Seriously, who defends that hairstyle. Smh.
So someone’s haircut == crazy and/or criminal to you. Wonder where you got your doctorate at, and I sincerely hope you don’t hold a teaching position.
Yes, Fastjack. This is why some ordinary, nice-looking guy can walk into a convenience store or a small shop and hold up the cashier at gunpoint, but the kid with his pants hanging off his butt and dreads or a stack haircut is obviously a troublemaker. And the guy with tatts all the way up on both arms? He’s definitely suspicious, but the ordinary-looking guy at the stoplight is actually the one who will try to carjack you.
I will add that Richard Matt, the very intelligent and manipulative murderer who recently escaped from Clinton Prison with David Sweat, looks remarkably like a CTA bus driver I used to see driving the 6:30AM bus, every morning on the way to work. Lovely man, married to the same woman for 30 years, 4 kids, 8 grandkids, retired from OTR trucking and wanted a job that kept him at home instead of on the road in foul weather.
Almost an indentical twin for Richard Matt. I think that should deflate the ‘criminal appearance’ theory, which is pure hogwash.
Upset? Not the same as annoyed. Try using a dictionary occasionally.
No, I do not have that haircut. I haven’t had it since I was three and my sister was six. I see it a lot around here, however, ON SMALL CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 10.
Is that simple enough for you?
Yes, and after the age of ten nobody should have this haircut. It makes them look like a crazy person.
Notice nobody is saying, gosh that Dylann kid always seemed so normal, I just can’t imagine him doing this. Nope, everyone is going, damn I always knew that kid was messed up.
You’ve made it abundantly clear several times that you judge people based on their appearance.
You are as guilty of prejudice as the idiotic teenagers who were quite sure, when they saw Johkar Tsarnaev’s photo in all the media available, that he could not possibly be one of the Boston Marathon bombers because, in their words, ‘he was just too cute to be like that’.
If you really are that stupid and prejudiced, you clearly have a problem.
Charles Whitman had a buzzcut, yet he murdered 16 people. Ted Bundy looked completely normal. He was a good-looking guy who murdered at least 33 women by beating them to death. Jeff Dahmer was quite ordinary-looking.
You are so full of complete shit, dr. knows-nothing at all, that you will never get rid of it.
I said THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CRIMINAL TYPE. You have done nothing but tell us how completely ignorant and prejudiced you are.
Here’s a good one for you, because it happened a couple of years ago: A Chicago police officer pulled over a woman driving alone at night and told her to follow him. She did so. He led her to a poorly-lit parking lot. He told her to get out of the car and when she did so, he raped her repeatedly.
He was s cop. He was also a criminal who took advantage of his badge to commit crimes. He was eventually arrested and charged, AFTER he did it again.
Would you care to go on with that crap, you ignoramus? I can refute everything you say.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CRIMINAL TYPE.
But there is such a thing as a bad haircut.
Haircuts, as I have clearly shown, have NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
While you’re trying to sort that out, I’m out for dinner.
Sure it’s not out to lunch?
I said this before:
Futue te ipsum. Pedisque parasiticus es popularium. Ceteri te putant irrumatorem.
Just ask Don Shipley if their is a “bad haircut”.
A criminal type is defined by their actions NOT Their haircuts or look. Joe
Careful David. So much common sense in one place is liable to make them pass a law against common sense. Wait…
Wonder what Gov. Douchebag’s bodyguards are going to carry when he gets his wish and bans all guns. Oh, yeah, laws for thee and not for me etc…..
He’s not the governor any more, jonp.
Oh, but he is still referred to as governor and he is introduced to the 18 people at his rallies as “Governor O’Malley” not Mr. O’Malley. Plus, he certainly has a security detail.
If Mr. O’malley really wants my gun all he has to do is to drive up my driveway, present himself at my back door, and Ill let him have it!
The problem the the argument is that it is based on a false premise. “Nut Jobs” will not be deterred by passing laws that restrict the use and purchase of guns further than they already do.
They only restrict those who have any intention of following the law. You can not stop drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own a car. Drunks will drive any way, outside the law.
Current laws already forbid the purchase of gun by “Nut Jobs”. DUI laws already forbid drunks from driving. The legal limit on BAC has been lowered to the point of being absurd. More restrictions on law abiding people does nothing to stop “Nut Jobs”.
We can talk about what to do every time some drunk kills a family in a van. We can talk about what to do every time some “Nut Job” opens fire on unarmed people.
You can talk to me all you want. I am open to discussion. Pull a weapon out and point it at me or anyone near me and I will put a bullet in a “Nut Jobs” head. That usually puts an end to any “Nut Jobs” opinion about anything.
Talk is a good thing, until you have to actually defend yourself. The you better be able to meet force with an overwhelming amount of force.
“MERICA, DAM IT, MERICA”
Did somebody say Quaaludes man?
Lol.
Martin O’Malley is the type of pandering blowhard that gives buggery such a bad name.
“The keyword was ideally. So, if it were in your power to rid the US, if not the world, of guns, you would not do so? Is that right? If so, why not?” That’s from me, above, to the good doctor. I thought I had better ensure he sees it. You have invited discussion. You need to stick around and discuss. BTW, Jonn has a question up above for you, too.
No I would not rid the world of guns. I like guns, I own quite a few. I am a member of my local gun club and the NRA. I’ve been involved in shooting sports since I was a child and have many fond memories of shooting and hunting with my father and grandfather. I look forward to they day that I get to take my sons on their first hunting trip and teaching them to shoot. Why would I not ban guns? Because in the grand scheme of life I don’t see the need to. Do I think we need to keep guns away from people who are dangerous or don’t have the mental capability to use them safely? Yes. I think it is irresponsible to allow those people to own guns.
And yet, the 3D printer exists. I’m not sure how you’re going to prevent someone from possessing a firearm when they can make one at home.
You left out ‘and melt it down afterwards’, 68W58.
So do nothing at all?
In the face of doing something counterproductive, yes.
How many more Marty O’Malley must we as a people endure before we stand up to the liberal lobbyists who keep his ilk in office?
A different take on O’Malley’s comment regarding the NRA lobbyists. Probably wasn’t clear on my post.
There is only one answer, there can only be one answer:
Molon Labe!
The left does not want a “conversation”, to them that means “I’ll talk, you listen because I’m so much more enlightened and intelligent than you are and then I don’t want to hear from a lowly little peasant like yourself.”
Well, I’ve got guns. I’m keeping them. If you don’t like that come and take them. There’s nothing else that needs to be said, I know where the left stands on this issue. If they want to rid the world of my firearms-come and take them.
What is the life of someone from the Middle East. Maybe MOM can have a discussion with Emporer Barrack about flooding the Middle East with weaponry in order to unseat governments that he does not approve of. He can’t trust an American with a pistol, but he is handing out weapons and ammunition overseas as if it was Halloween candy.
When the day comes that guns are not needed by ANY police department in ANY state, that will be the day I will strongly consider giving mine up. No box cars for me; no “We are going to take you to a place that is safe”, no nuttin’ thank you. Meanwhile I don’t know nuttin’ about nuttin’, so don’t ask!
One thing all recent mass murderers had in common………one must presumably use logic and destroy all access. Ever hear of psychotrophic drugs? Check this link out.
Nearly Every Mass Shooting Has This One Thing In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons
There’s no link there, Jarhead.
Sorry ’bout that Ex-PH2. Could not find a link; had to copy and paste. Should get you there on Google. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The article is thought- provoking in every aspect.
S/F
I found the article and read it, but the psychotropic drugs mentioned are not linked to mass murders, but to individual acts and suicides.
None of those drugs account for Ted Bundy’s murdering all those women, or for Richard Speck, the Green River Killer, the Zodiac Killer, John Gacey, or Jeff Dahmer.
Their violent activities all took place prior to the development of those drugs. It does not account for William Heirens’ murdering 2 women and a little girl in the 1940s in Chicago before he was caught.
If we’re going to discuss mass murderers, Pol Pot is the worst one in recent memory.
The Kim family (ND:tBF) in Norkiland is made up of people who are raised with no conscience, and who think it’s just fine to murder anyone who disagrees with them or looks at them cross-eyed.
You can say the same thing about Stalin in the USSR, and subsequently, Milosevich in the Balkans.
We can add to that the ISers who have routinely slaughtered thousands of people in the most gruesome ways and put the videos on the internet, because the brakes that tell us it is wrong are gone from them.
The side effects of those prescribed drugs may have removed the inhibitions from those people mentioned, but that does not account for the ISers, whose mass slaughters we all know about.
A single gun is worth more than all of the politicians in the United States.
Just saying….
Marty O’Malley: A single life ‘worth more than all the guns in the United States’…..
Usually there are exceptions to every statement. What if that single life is the thug that broke into your home, injured or killed someone, robbed, etc. You know, the HOME INVASIION SPECIALIST. His life is worth zip in our home.
There is something that can be done to make the USA safer from lunatics and bad actors who intend to harm others: teach gun safety in schools, encourage individuals to avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment rights, subsidize firearms qualification courses and offer discounts on firearms to those whose income prevents them from protecting themselves and their loved ones, demand of your state that those who commit a felony using a firearm face a mandatory minimum and require sentences of such persons to be published, to include the name of the judge and, if a deal is made, the name of the prosecutor, as well as the name of the judge who approved the deal.
Yes, I am serious–and I am sick and tired of the gun grabbers controlling the issue every time some nut job goes on a killing spree. I say again that the logical and necessary end game for the Blumbergs and O’Malleys is to end private ownership of firearms. Towards that unspoken end, they seek to restrict gun acquisition and gun possession, using select tragedies to sell a bill of goods to the public that fewer guns in the hands of fewer people will end these tragedies.
I knew a guy at one time that owned a dairy in New Zealand. He told me that the key to maximizing the market in Japan to New Zealand’s dairy products was a marketing campaign that specifically targeted Japanese housewives. Once the Japanese women became convinced that New Zealand had the best and healthiest dairy products available (that would enhance their beauty), market dominance followed.
It has been my personal experience that people that are afraid of guns, have no idea what they actually are or how they work.
I do not disagree with your ideas above. I think and education and empowerment campaign explicitly marketed to women might pay greatest dividends. There are certainly some “true life” stories out there that would make great teaching materials.
I also strongly agree that when guns are used in the commission of crimes the penalties need to be severe and strongly applied. I’m no judicial system expert, but it seems to me that the judges and the prosecutors need to do their jobs and quit cutting deals. I like the idea of shining a light on the ones that plea bargain their cases.
“It has been my personal experience that people that are afraid of guns, have no idea what they actually are or how they work.”
Good point. Most people who are ‘deathly afraid’ of guns have never even held one. A lot of them are women. Remember the old adage, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”? Same here, guys. Get the ladies involved in shooting sports. There are two benefits to that: women who shoot are not going to be marching in the streets to ban guns, and you’ll get to go shooting more often! I take my lady friends to the range as often as I can. You know what they tell me? They never went because nobody ever asked them. Women only rarely venture into the men’s world of shooting by themselves. Invite them, make them welcome, and you’ll find yourself pleasantly surprised at the response.
My wife was terrified of guns, until I took her shooting. Now she has several boomsticks of her own.
You’re making far too much common sense, 2/17 Air Cav. Be careful they don’t come knocking and haul you away some day.
If shop classes, brought up to date to skilled work classes with journeyman offerings, were offered in high school, like they were when I was in high school, that would eliminate the need for higher-level schools (e.g., DeVry U) to offer them at a rather high tuition cost to students.
There are several trade schools advertising for students now and one of the local colleges offers a CDL certification for OTR trucking candidates. If, as several resources have said, the jobs that left the US and went to China will leave China in the near future (2025), the demand for skilled labor may go up here.
Now I’ve got a headache…
Let us always remember this:
The sole purpose of Amendment II to our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America is to guarantee that the unalienable right of we, the people, to always be able to freely own and carry fully loaded military equivalent firearms, with no legal interference or hindrance, so that should it become necessary, we, the people, are able to, at any moment, rise up in armed revolt to violently resist or overthrow the tyranny and despotism existing within our own government.
The ability to counter violent felons, hunt game, collect antiques, and engage in recreational or competitive shooting, are merely secondary benefits of the primary purpose.
At the risk of putting a curve in this thread;
Apparently, banning the Confederate flag is going to cure this issue.
See that was easy.
The flag is a symbol of “hate” to the 13% of the nation that is black. Okay – I get it.
Let’s try this on for size: once upon a time, Native Americans made up almost 100% of the population of the area that is now the US. That number is now 0.7%.
I wonder how they feel about the American flag?
I have tried to give the so-called Confederate flag issue fair consideration and I must say, I haven’t reached a conclusion. My initial reaction to the South Carolina flag issue (which has since spread to other states below the Mason-Dixon line) was to dismiss it out of hand. When politicians are falling all over themselves rushing to the podium to demand that South Carolina and other states rid themselves of what is popularly, if wrongly, called the Confederate flag, I recoil. When Harry “The Embalmed” Reid chimed in that the flag needs to be removed, he was asked his view of UNLV’s “Running Rebels” nickname and hit the brakes, saying that it was a matter for the Board of Regents to decide. Huh? The last time I looked, Reid was a US senator from Nevada, not South Carolina. In any event, I’d guess most folks don’t know that the South Carolina flag at issue does not fly over the state capitol building. It’s part of a Confederate war monument, both of which are on capitol grounds. Perhaps both should go, in much the same way ISIS erases symbols of all sorts, however ancient, that it doesn’t favor.
But there’s another side to this flag issue that bothers me and that side traces to politicians, as most problems in our country do. The Confederate battle flags were used by politicians at a particular time in our history as a symbol of racial segregation, not in honor of Confederate soldiers or some other decent purpose.
Yep. The flag does now represent a lot of wrong things (perceived and actual) that it originally didn’t. But getting on the “erase history” bandwagon which is suddenly popular, does nothing to get rid of racism and hate. Ask the Germans how that’s working…
Yeah, whenever I see the official state flag of South Carolina, I see Muslim symbolism. If that’s not a scream….
I find the large number of conservative republicans defending the flying of a flag formerly flown by slaveholding democrats who sought to sunder the union over the issue of owning slaves to be a particularly entertaining spectacle…
Somedays it appears that up is down and down is in fact up.
Of all those who bitch and moan about the Southern Cross, how many do you think could identify an ACTUAL Confederate flag if their life depended on it? And how many know that the Southern Cross was flown proudly by black Marines over their positions in Korea?
Over Okinawa as well, until General Buckner had them take it down. Oh, the irony.
To answer your question directly: there are Native Americans who are not really happy with the American flag.
To which I say, “Tough shit.”
I can see if from their point of view. The American Indian has the dubious honor of being the only race here that ever faced extermination as a governmental policy.
You guys are completely 180 out on this.
It isn’t a flag that is a symbol of hate and prejudice.
It’s the elephant in the room. Think about that for a few seconds.
This really isn’t a one-size-fits-all issue. The history attached to state flags is interesting, to say the least. In several states, flags that in one way or another reflected the Confederacy were established while many Civil War veterans were alive. To me, that is significant. In a couple of instances, the timing of changes to state flags clearly responded to opposition to integration efforts. It is much easier for people to lump it all together and say that any representation of the Confederacy ought to be banned. Me? I can’t get there from here.
If the thought is that banning the flags of entities that supported the notion that people could be bought, sold, and traded, then there’s going to have to be a whole lot of banning going on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_slavery
The CSA was just a drop in the bucket and the people of Africa and Arabia were (and are) very complicit. Banning the Confederate flag should give great comfort to the Yazidi, much more so than just a hashtag.
Here’s a better idea. Do like the 5th Marines when they took Shuri Castle on Okinawa. They raised the Southern Cross over the ruins as an extra-special “fuck you” to the japs. Do the same in Fallujah.
when ALL politicians, ALL hollywood types and ALL who live behind gates fences and walls, give up their armed security, then we can talk.
I really have a problem with the “when everyone else gives up theirs” line of thinking… hell, I like guns. I like all kinds, I like seeing how they work, how they can deliver a bullet on target a hell of a long ways out, their looks, making ammo that is better than what I can buy, making bullets better than anyone sells, recreating historical pieces or salvaging pieces of family history… I don’t give two rat shits about who else likes what they like or shares the same interest- it’s what I like and I’m selfish enough to think that unless there is a compelling national interest in MY doing otherwise, I’m hanging onto ’em.
Disclaimer: this of course refers to before the tragic boating incident in which all of mine were lost. The safe in my bedroom now contains the wife’s jewelry. Honest.
Let’s not forgot this popular rallying cry either:
“You can have my grandma’s pressure cooker when you pry her cold, dead hands from it.”
What’s next???
As one of my favorites, Mr. David Allen Coe, would say, “I’m obliged to include this on such an important issue”. That being, this caving in to special interests from whom I had had too F_____G much! Take your blood pressure medicine, clench your teeth and prepare to get highly agitated. Go to a web site in Alabama RickeyStokesNews.com and read the following post. Enough is Enough some are Some Taking this Whole Flag Thing to Far. Excuse the spelling, but this was a copy and paste. Spelling police be damned this time. It’s the ISSUE stupid!!!!
I can’t spell ship when I am really P. O. as I am right now. Read the post on RickeyStokesNews.com and you will not be able to read ship.