Was anyone at the 2nd Amendment Rally on the Mall on April 19, 2010? I need someone to explain to me why I should be comfortable with speech like this. I had no idea this nonsense had gone on. What I hear is very threatening speech.

Actually, I have never heard President Obama discuss gun control. Where is this hype coming from? Again, and I have said it before, talk and rhetoric like this pushes moderates, centrists, liberals and all sorts of people into a zone the gun folks probably don’t want to deal with.

I don’t know anything about these speakers but they sound like thugs to me. I don’t want thugs having guns. I suggest the gun folks chose more responsible speakers if you want to convince the rest of us gun owners without a cause to support you. Surely there is a logical explanation.

42 Thoughts to “Burn Them at the Stake like the Witches They Are”

  1. I was there at the rally in DC.

    First, I do want to point out that the video you have, is put out by Media Matters and that they do have an anti-right, pro-gun control bias. That video is a collection, out of context, of any and all remarks that might sound inflammatory.

    Larry Pratt is famed or infamous for his rhetoric and hyperbole. However, you must understand that many people feel this way. Did you check out the link for the Sipsey Street Irregulars and why he said. You won’t see or hear real extremists because they don’t believe that the system works anymore. They won’t be at the booth or the marches.
    Obama has played it smart. He has not put gun control on the agenda, yet. He has supported it as a Senator. Senator Boxer has said,” If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” Shouldn’t Americans be upset if lawmakers are attempting to infringe upon their rights.

    Many in Congress are full supporters of banning all guns. The Brady Campaign and the VPC are always lobbying Congress for “common sense” gun laws that are only the first step to more restrictions. That is information from them, not rhetoric from us. Obama is on the record supporting many gun control bills and bans. Attempts have been made to link gun restrictions to the secret “watch lists” and “no fly” lists. Many states attempt to place onerous taxes and fees and bureaucracy to restrict gun ownership.

    There is a treaty in the UN right now that, if accepted by the US, may put unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership.

    You may find this rhetoric scary and it may make you uncomfortable. Why? This speech is about freedom and liberty. Our countries founders wrote this way and thought this way.
    Did you notice that Media Mutters, I mean Media Matters, did not try to put out entire speeches from them. You know that they had them. How else can you edit them to make a compilation. How about other speeches?

    I’ve got a post up from the Rally: http://unitedconservatives.blogspot.com/2010/04/2nd-amendment-march-dc-rally.html

    Another speech that was great, one I linked to in an earlier thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyZNGjl4xm4&playnext_from=TL&videos=q0_42FILUIY

    “So I dial 911 and I going to get a homophobic cop to come and protect my butt. Does anyone here see a problem with that?”

    2nd Amendment supporters have learned that if we let off the pressure, those in Congress will come back and try to restrict our rights again. If we let the media control the message, Congress feels its safe to put more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

    The 2nd Amendment puts a limit on the Federal government from imposing restrictions for a reason. As archaic as it may seem, the 2nd is there to put teeth into any defense of the citizens rights. It may seem far-fetched to think that Americans would ever need to utilize their weapons in support of freedom, but, not unthinkable. It is OUR fault that we have allowed our governments to become so powerful and distant from the citizenry that any resistance would probably be overwhelmed without a massive uprising. Governments should be fearful of their citizenry. It should be afraid of usurping their rights. Yes, angry and violent rhetoric is used. Signs state, “When they come for your gun, give them the bullets first.” should instill fear. The 2nd Amendment is, intrinsically, about violence. Violence in defense of freedom and liberty. And there are people that are willing to stand up for freedom and liberty. All of these signs and rallies are warnings that there are lines being drawn in the sand. To Obama’s credit, he has not approached those lines.

    Its back to that age old question: When should a free citizen take up arms to defend those freedoms? Every citizen has to determine that for themselves. And the authorities need to ask the same question. And do those authorities want to be part of defending freedom or part of those that wish to take away liberties?

    Now, I know that you are going to think about the “witches” comment. How terrible! Well, it was rude. But, one will get that at any rally….left or right. Are you really going to say that was a cry for actual violence. Think about this…if that was the worst, inflammatory language that Media Matters could latch onto, then, I think that the Republic is safe.

    1. Thanks for taking the time to give your point of view, Cargo Squid. Can you get the entire speeches by those people. I understand what you are saying about cherry picking through a speech but geez, some of that stuff was rough.

      Do you see where I am coming from? There are gun owners out there who don’t live, breathe and go to the bathroom 2nd amendment. Some of us don’t mind compromise at all. There are a lot of us who don’t like the uncompromising rough talk out of people like in that video.
      I still suggest toning it down. What was that sign at the beginning…Addressed to Barry? I just didn’t like that.

  2. Moon, I can’t get all of the videos. I posted three videos to you tube. The other, I need splitting software.

    I understand where you are coming from. However, can you understand where the people that are fighting for the 2nd Amendment are coming from? This is a conflict. Instead of real weapons, words, posters, speeches, open and conceal carry expansion, and rallies are used. Can you understand that these people are the soldiers of the conflict. And the only way that those that are uncomfortable about the way those weapons are used can change them is by getting involved in the fight. If 1/4 of the gun owners of America would stand up and tell Congress that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, there would be no need for heated rhetoric. If 1/2 of the gun owners did it, Congress would not dare if infringe on ANY amendment or right. There are an estimated 80-100 million gun owners in America, possessing at least 200 million firearms. The NRA, on its best day, has 4 million members. The Gun Owners of America, much less. Look at the successes (though you might not like them) that the VCDL has had with only 3500 members and about 15000 on its email list.

    It is those people and people like them, pressuring Congress and local governments, to “liberalize” their gun laws. Without the 2nd Amendment supporters, gun owners….wouldn’t be.

  3. Here’s a link to who was speaking:


    The larger media ignored it, except for minor clips. The armed rally in Virginia drew more media, hoping for red meat.

    While I saw a lot of cameras, no full videos have come out.

  4. Starryflights

    cargosquid :
    Obama has played it smart. He has not put gun control on the agenda, yet.

    Well, you be sure to let us know when he does, Mr. Squid. In the meantime, keep up the good work, you’re doing an outstanding job.

    These people just need something to whine about. A few of them, like Tim McVeigh, may try to blow up daycare centers, but most of them will just rant and rave on internet blogs and talk radio.

  5. Wolverine

    Obama has indeed spoken — through Hillary Clinton. She very recently made it clear that the US will support the current arms trade treaty process at the UN. This is a reversal of the Bush II policy. There will be a meeting at the UN in New York on 14-18 June to review progress on the UN program of Action on Small Arms. This is part of what is making the 2nd Amendment people very nervous. Congressman Paul Bourn, Republican of Georgia (the guy in the video) has stated that he is going to lead the charge on the Hill against any such treaty that may attempt to place international controls on the private American ownership of guns. A UN treaty, if ratified by the Senate, could theoretically trump our own Constitution.

    Supporters of the treaty claim that the treaty is only aimed at the illicit international small arms trade placing weapons in the hands of guerrilla movements, insurgents, and irresponsible governments and not at private ownership by others. Some claim, in fact, that the US is trying to ensure that the treaty has a “concensus” factor in it, i.e. that the US would be able to veto it if not satisfied with the contents. I’m not quite sure how that would work. If not satisfied, would we be able simply to ignore it from a domestic standpoint?

    Opponents claim that the whole thing is a cover for an eventual attempt to place UN controls over all private ownership of guns. They cite the fact that the big pushers for this treaty are anti-gun NGO’s which have, indeed, had heavy input into the process. They, for instance, can point to a couple of key points in the final declaration at the 62nd Annual UN DPI/NGO Conference in Mexico City in September 2009. Under the list of recommended things that governments and interrnational organizations must do are the following:

    — Prevent the proliferation of small arms in the civilian population through strict government licensing, registration, and regulation of the sale, possession, and use of small arms.

    — Harmonize laws on domestic violence with laws for the prevention of violence committed with small arms.

    In short, opponents believe that this is the ultimate purpose of this treaty process and that we could wind up in a situation where a UN treaty rather than American law governs our private ownership of guns. Everyone will be watching closely the final form of any treaty and especially if the NGO recommendations on control over privately owned small arms are included. This brouhaha is not going to die out anytime soon, I guarantee you that.

  6. Starryflights

    The treaty you mentioned regulates arms exports to other countries, not domestic gun sales laws. It also wouldn’t be ratified until 2012. You can read it here:

    Armed violence kills 2,000 a day worldwide: groups

    “Diplomats said the Obama administration was more open than its predecessor to a treaty, but still had concerns about its effectiveness and whether it could affect U.S. citizens’ rights to bear arms. Treaty supporters say it would not regulate domestic arms sales.

    The resolution before the General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.”


  7. Starryflights

    And btw, these idiots have been predicting the repeal of the 2nd Amendment for about 50 years or so now, and that the European Central Bank is a private institution “just like” the Fed and run by shadow forces, that the Treaty of Lisbon does away with the german federal constitution (Grundgesetz) and re-introduces the death penalty, and that anyway, EU and NAFTA and World Bank and IMF are all essentially the same, blah blah blah!

    Be afraid, be very, very afraid – EEEEEEEEk!

  8. I will try to read this this afternoon. I suppose my issue is that I am trying to find balance and gun folks don’t want compromise. I have to leave for the day but will catch up this afternoon. UN should have nothing to say about our domestic policy.

  9. Starryflights

    How does one compromise with somebody who believe you to be a witch that deserves to be burned at the stake? Dude sounds like Torqumada.

    Somebody should tell this guy “Hey, I’m a good witch, like Glinda in the Wizard of Oz! Now begone, before I turn you into a frog,” bwahaha!

  10. What scares me is this: some of these 2nd Amendment people are going to go over the edge and declare war on the government. I mean physical war. Why?

    1. They are angry and scared because they feel the government is against them.
    2. They believe they have the right to form a militia.
    3. They believe, if it came to this, they would be freedom fighters.

    One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

    I’m not sure some of these people would not turn into terrorists under the right circumstances.

  11. Elena

    Didn’t Obama sign into the law the right to open carry at Federal Parks? Sorry, these grand conspiracy theories are silly and over reactive. No one is prying your gun out of your “cold dead hands”.

  12. I’m with you Pinko–at some point all of this angry, threatening rhetoric is going to overflow and we will have Americans killing Americans and the loudmouths who started it all will scream “Foul”.

    If they were to ever gain control, their system of government would make Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, and all the other oppressive leaders look like Boy Scouts. If there would be a saving grace it would be that those very people would be the first ones the “new regime” would do away with–trouble makers and recolutionaries are often the frist victims of the “new order”. Think about the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the overthrow of Vietnam, the overthrow of China.

  13. In defense of rights, why should there be compromise? Would you be willing to have the 1st Amendment regulated as much the 2nd? How about the “right of abortion”? I notice that supporters have not compromised on that and fight tooth and nail for any changes in the law.

    As to the repeal of the 2nd, some advocate that or work in ways to negate it. Of course there are conspiracy theorists. But, they are right that there are powerful people working to take away freedoms recognized under the 2nd.

    Pinko, there are some that have stated openly, that if the government did ban weapons and begin seizures, that is the line that they have drawn. A popular phrase, “The 2nd isn’t needed until they try to take it away.” is a very simple thought. Another is “if its time to bury them, its time to dig them up.”

    Today, many feel that even a conservative or originalist SCOTUS would not find earlier cases such as the 1934,1968 and 1986 bills, unconstitutional. The courts do not want to overturn decades of gun laws and would rather muddle through, trying to fit our freedoms into the web of government control. While parts of those laws are not oppressive, the bureaucracy and web of regulations, and the precedent set, allows abuses to occur. The BATFE is notorious for harassment of law abiding FFL’s. Think about what would happen to all the laws if “shall not be infringed” would become the law. Very interesting.

    Many politicians fear a populace with easy access to arms. They also fear an organized populace. They are terrified of an organized and armed populace.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

    Well regulated at that time meant trained. Militia were expected to provide their own arms. They were used to provide for the common defense and keep order. There could be private militias, usually raised by wealthier persons and presented to the authorities.

    The problem was that organized, armed groups could also object to overreaching government, either locally or federal. The Whiskey Rebellion, while it was put down, succeeded. Taxes were not collected on whiskey, except in small areas. No “ringleaders” were convicted. Shay’s Rebellion, though it was put down, and 1000’s captured, mainly due to a mistimed assault, actually succeeded, in the long run. The Constitution was a result of that conflict. Stronger protections were needed to prevent richer citizens that ran the local governments from bullying the poorer farmers. Washington supported a stronger federal government for law and order reasons. Others supported a stronger federal government to protect freedoms.

    Standing armies are more suited for protecting the state and carrying out their wishes. Police do that at a local level. However, until WW2, our army was quite small, consisting of a cadre available to train draftees. Until the 1800’s, with greater immigration and urbanization, elected constables maintained order. There were no police forces that were wholly employed as government employees.

    As to Starry’s comments about the other “conspiracy theories” that is an unrelated topic. While many do ascribe to assorted theories, these people at the rally did not appear to care about those. None of the countries supporting the UN treaty support a right to keep and bear arms. No treaty has been written, as of yet. However, the UN does not have a history of supporting the individual right to bear arms. Any treaty may “acknowledge the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…” and another provision acknowledges that countries have a right to arms for “self-defence and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations.”

    No where does this treaty support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms which is a human right. The people of the Congo are subject to horrible abuses. The law abiding villagers disarmed and now have no defense against the guerrillas/bandits. The people of Darfur have not defense against the government and are being starved. But this treaty would stop any transfer of arms to them, because that would “cause instability.”

    In a nutshell, we don’t trust the UN to do anything that is principled, honest, and without ulterior motives.

    Moon, the problem with “finding balance” is…..who defines the balance? Me? You? Paul Helmke of the VPC? Mayor Daley? Ted Nugent?

    We have a right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the government wishes. However, because of the power of the government in enforcing its will, citizens have accepted various restrictions. To their detriment. Just ask the citizenry of DC, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.

  14. marinm

    Interesting that you left off the French Revolution. Hits too close to home? Too many parallels?

    Elena, Obama signed into law a credit card revamp law that had a rider on it that allowed for National Parks to follow state laws. Mainly to make it easier for people to not get arrested for the minor issue of carrying a loaded (or unloaded) concealed (or openly carried) firearm to a National Park.

    The amendment just made sense. I just don’t see why anyone could really argue against it. I mean, I can have a holstered pistol on me at a playground in Montclair, VA but if I go across the street to Prince William Forest Park I have to disarm and place it into my vehicles trunk? 98% of gun laws just don’t make any sense whatsoever.

    With all the fan fare of people being shocked that you can carry pistols at Starbucks, at restraunts that serve alcohol, or even onto college campuses the People are solidly against gun control measures at roughly a 70/30% split. Add that to a 20/80 split of government approval in the United States and I believe the number of people supporting gun control measures will decrease even more.

    I’m a fan of the Constitutional Carry gun movement. No more permits for open or concealed carry. And very few if any restrictions on where you may carry.

  15. Censored bybvbl

    As for the speakers at the rally, no one put those words in their mouths as far as I know. They chose to publically utter that rhetoric even if what is presented above are mere snippets. As a gun owner, I find their rhetoric abhorrent. And as a person who doesn’t take my guns out of my house, I just don’t feel the fear and paranoia that these militia types do. I don’t need to carry, brandish, complain about my freedoms being taken away. Aside from the 2nd. amendment issue, just what are you guys afraid of? Who’s coming to get you and your guns?

  16. Anonymous

    Let’s get real. Guns are fine, it’s the bullets that are the problem. This could be easily solved with a $1,000 per bullet surcharge. People would certainly think twice before using even one expensive bullet and the monies raised could be used to provide health care to poor children. Seems like an obvious win-win opportunity.

  17. marinm

    Anonymous, so what do you do about people that re-load there own ammo at home? Also, rising prices of ammo have caused police departments to train LESS with live ammo (GWOT is consuming a lot of bullets reducing supply and civilian law enforcement and civilians have up’d demand on that limited supply = costs are way up already).

    Ok, so we make it $1,000 (Chris Rock in his comedy skit I think proposed $5,000). How much does it cost anyone to make a homemade grenade? … lot less than the cost of that one bullet.

    Just saying, watch out for those unintended consequences.

  18. Censored,
    There is no hidden agenda. The rally was a “pep rally.” Do you live in Virginia? If so, that’s why no one is after your guns. That’s why, if you wanted to, you could take your weapon with you when you leave home. In other states, or DC, that is unlawful. You don’t complain about freedoms being taken away, because, AT THE MOMENT, they are not. Why? Because of people like those at the rally. They and other’s like them, have fought to keep your right to keep and bear arms safe. The people of New Orleans had their firearms illegally confiscated during Katrina and have yet to get them back or any satisfaction, even with the city and state under a court order. They felt the same as you. No one was coming for their guns. The authorities would recognize that they needed them for the emergency. Yet, not so much. It is because of the 2nd Amendment organizations that gun owners are safer from confiscation. Laws have been enacted in Louisiana that specifically prohibit confiscation of firearms.

    Who is coming to take the arms? Google “gun control” or “common sense gun laws.” Of course, being uninvolved in this political fight, you may not know about the Brady campaign, the Violence Policy Center, Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, and Obama’s opinions on gun ownerships and control. Obama states he supports the 2nd Amendment but supports Chicago’s ban on ownership.

    Remember the “Assault Weapons Ban?” It did nothing to control crime, but, affected law abiding citizens. Many Congressmen want to reinstate it. AG Holder is for it. Then there are the ludicrous ‘microstamping” bills, gun registration bills, “gun show loophole” bills, and other stupid ideas that do nothing but infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Registration has ALWAYS led to confiscation. Always.

    I’m sorry that you find the rhetoric abhorrent. I find a lot of free speech abhorrent. I don’t join those organizations. If you don’t wish to support those that are on your side, yet you find extreme, don’t. We wish you well and are happy that you are able to exercise your right to keep and bear arms freely, without government harassment.

  19. @marinm
    Another aspect is that the military is no longer selling surplus brass to the ammo industry. They are selling it for lower prices as scrap. Hmmmmm…makes you think.

  20. Wolverine

    Gee, Starryflights, thanks for taking the time to re-explain what I explained with regard to the contrasting opinions on that treaty in my post. What would I ever do without you?

  21. marinm

    Have we discussed the racist roots of the gun control lobby yet? Or, how the biggest proponents of gun control measures are areas with a large number of minorities?

    I mean, I hate to bring up the race card but gun control is usually pushed by those that fear the image of an law abiding armed black male.

    I call that an American that knows where he comes from and what this country really stands for.

  22. @cargosquid

    1st amendment is full of compromise. Pick up a coin. Abortion rights are compromised.

  23. @Moon-howler
    But nowhere is the 1st Amendment banned like the right the bear arms is in Chicago or recently, in DC. The right to carry in many places is right out. So by that logic, one can be allowed all the free speech one wants while in the home. Other than false warnings and slander, where is the 1st Amendment compromised. It has actually expanded. Well, kind of. Non PC speech is frowned upon. Personally, I’ll take the frowns if I feel its worth saying.

    Abortion rights are compromised? To my knowledge, a minor, in some places, can get an abortion without parental knowledge, but will be suspended for having an unauthorized aspirin. And one can have abortions throughout the pregnancy, unless they finally passed something I missed. The only thing that I remember being passed is the ban on partial birth abortion. Its easier for a child to get an abortion than it is for that teen to get a firearm. And yet, a firearm MAY cost a life….

  24. Censored bybvbl

    Cargosquid, regardless of your personal opinion on abortion, I hope you
    are fighting to insure that women remain free to make that choice. I hope that old phallic symbol, the gun, hasn’t blinded you to other attacks on our rights.

    Marinm, DC’s population is largely African-American. Maybe the majority wanted to be as free of gun violence as they could be. I don’t see a bunch of liberals running around with guns on their hips. I think it’s the conservative white male who is leading the gun rights movement. Why are they so fearful?

  25. @Censored bybvbl
    Since my personal opinion is ambivalent, I don’t make an argument for or against. I believe that life begins at conception. But, I don’t want women being put into jail for abortions. But, if its life…….but I know women that have had abortions……do you see the dilemma? But that topic is not relevant in this thread. I brought it up only to compare the intensity for which supporters fight for those.

    Why is it only those that denigrate the gun enthusiast or look down on the 2nd Amendment activist that calls the gun a phallic symbol. Does the supposed phallic symbolism and supposed compensation for “short comings” apply to armed women?

    DC’s population does want to be free of gun violence, as do we all. Yet, those cities with freer gun laws have a lower incidence of violence. Why does Fairfax and Arlington have low crime rates, yet they are just across a small river from DC. Why does Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and New York have higher per capita gun violence than do other cities like Dallas, Richmond, etc. Gun contol is racist at its roots. The origin of gun control was to prevent freed slaves from owning guns. Then came the laws against “saturday night specials.” You know, INEXPENSIVE guns that poor people could buy and use for defense. Criminals have no problem getting guns. Irony abounds in the fact that laws limiting magazines to 10 rounds gave a huge impetus to concealed carry development.

    Of course you don’t see a bunch of liberals running around with guns on their hips. In their conclaves, guns usually are restricted. Unless you have connections…..

    And I know of several liberals that carry guns in Richmond. But usually the stereotype, with definite basis in truth, is that liberals want to ban guns or strongly restrict them.

    Why do you think that the conservative white male is fearful because the are the majority of gun rights activists? By that logic, are you implying that we would be fearful of armed blacks?

    Au contraire! We are trying to open the eyes of the African-American citizens that exercising their rights recognized by the 2nd is a good thing; that more law abiding citizens should exercise their rights.

    You do remember about the rifle bearing man that attended the Tea Party rally, right? The media made a big deal about it. You do remember that the media cropped the picture to keep his race from being known. Black Man with a gun! Our cry is, “GREAT!”

    Since evidence shows that greater possession of firearms and more concealed carry reduces crime, what do the liberals have to fear about African Americans bearing arms? How does restricting the rights of the law abiding in DC prevent gun violence in their community? Apparently a total gun ban did nothing. So, lets give the populace the means to defend themselves.

    Is it the presence of the gun that causes gun crime? Or is it culture? Baltimore’s interactive murder map:
    http://essentials.baltimoresun.com/micro_sun/homicides/index.php?range=2010&district=all&zipcode=all&age=all&gender=all&race=all&cause=shooting&article=all show_results=Show+Results

    Plug in the criteria and you get different results. Of the 52 murders committed in 2010, 42 were shootings. All affected black men. My assumption is that it was black on black crime since that is the historical statistic, though I may be wrong. Unfortunately the map shows only the race and ages of the victim, not the perpetrator.

    Why is it that there are no white or Asian victims? One cannot only blame it on guns, as there are guns available in those neighborhoods, too.

  26. @Anonymous

    Please chose a moniker other than anonymous. Too many people want that name. It has a premium price tag on it.

  27. I can’t top Censored’s comment.

  28. Moon, apparently my long lost comment showed up. Please disregard the email I sent, unless of course, you fixed it because of the email. Then thanks.

  29. marinm

    Censored, your logic is flawed. DC’s gun crime and gun murder rate staggers over Virginia where a person can wear a loaded semi-automatic rifle on his back. How do those gun laws protect the residents of DC? They don’t. Otherwise, DCs rate of gun crime would be lower than Virginia’s, would it not?

    “Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. […] I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. […] And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

    — Dianne Feinstein

    She has no problem with laws that disarm those without power or connections but people like her should have easy access to guns and carry them wherever they go.

    That’s the same principle that Cargo explained in the very good example of banning Saturday Night Specials. Ever see a legal gun under $100? Glocks go for over $500. On my salary I don’t lose sleep over it but someone living in Georgetown South? Too pricey.

    We see many fans of liberal doctrine on this blog talk about helping the poor get healthcare or get equal pay or any other traditional democratic plank but never do we hear any word about helping the poor have a tool to defend themselves. Never.

    So the good hardworking poor are prayed upon by everyone – corporate america, government, and people that don’t like guns.

    Just doesn’t make sense to me. People should have access to guns without the unneccessary and burdonsome step of having to acquire a permit or license from the government. And, yes that includes the working poor along with corporate wage slaves.

  30. marinm

    I will also point out the irony that HCR reform may be killed in its tracks because a kid named Lopez decided to bring a gun to a school and the Supreme Court ruled that gun free zones were not a legal application of the commerce clause.

  31. An example of the need for inexpensive firearms:


    One has to look very hard to find a decent pistol under $250. Most new ones are at least $300.

  32. Wolverine

    Gotta tweek your gourd a bit on this one, Moon. I’d try to tweek Starryflights too, but somehow I just don’t think he/she would get it.

    This thread shows some speeches at the 2nd Amendment rally. Fair game to provide a critique of what the speakers said. But to caption the thread with “Burn Them at the Stake like the Witches They Are”? That was an anonymous call out from someone in the crowd. No identification of the person who did it. But we still get it as a possible example of the sentiment of all present. Sorry, Moon, but no go in this camp.

    But let me carry the tweek just a bit further:

    Sign No. 1: (Anti-war rally in San Fran, March 2007) “Kill Bush. Bomb His F….in House.”

    Sign No. 2: (Mother Earth Rally, November 2003) “Mother Earth Kill Bush”

    Sign No. 3: (Anti-war protest in LA, October 2007) “Hang Bush for War Crimes” (complete with a photo of Bush with a hangman’s noose around his neck)

    Sign No. 4: (location/date of protest unknown) “I’m Here to Kill Bush (Shoot Me)”

    Sign No. 5 (Anti-war rally, LA March 2008) “Bush is the Only Dope Worth Shooting”

    Logical conclusion based on current theory? Those protesting the war in Iraq may well be aspiring presidential assassins, perhaps (based on No.3) even a lynch mob. Throw in the Mother Earth crowd and it looks like we may have even more people who support violence against a president. Fair is fair, as they say.

  33. Censored bybvbl

    Marinm and Cargosquid, if most people can afford a tv, cellphone, a car, decent clothes, and a few cups of Starbucks’ finest, they can afford a gun. I don’t buy your argument. I don’t see people asking for gun handouts.

    I’ll still ask, because I don’t feel that you’ve answered, excluding a fear of change to the 2nd. amendment, what are you afraid of? Why is it necessary to carry a gun? Who’s coming to get your guns?

  34. I’ve answered the question about who we feel wants to restrict our right to arms.

    Most people can afford a decent handgun costing $300. I’m talking about the single mother in the projects that has to watch every penny and is afraid of gang bangers or the husband she threw out for beating her. Why is it that people need to seek a handout, for a gun or otherwise? For one thing, who would provide such a handout? The same government that seeks to control them?

    I’m not afraid of anything in particular. I’m afraid of fire destroying my home. I’m afraid of car accidents, etc. A firearm is like a fire extinguisher. It is an emergency tool. Each person that carries a gun has their own reasons. Some do it to exercise their rights. Some do it because of violence in the past. Some do it in order to protect themselves and their families. I carry occasionally. I’m not in the habit of carrying. Once you do, you have to incorporate it into your lifestyle. I go too many places that prohibit carry. When I do carry, I do it for protection and because I like to exercise the rights I have. Many open carry for that very reason, to illustrate that persons carrying weapons are just your neighbors and its no big deal.

  35. Censored, I’ve re-read your question. Except in the way I’ve answered, perhaps I don’t understand it. Are you asking about who, personally, do I think is coming to get my guns? Is that your question? The only answer I can give you is that it would depend upon how the authorities would want to confiscate the weapons. Weapons that I happened to, um…….what weapons?

    Hope I’ve answered the question.

  36. Censored bybvbl

    Cargosquid, yes, I’m asking who personally you think would confiscate your weapons. Don’t you think it would take a massive organized force to be able to seize all the weapons that individuals own in this country – an almost impossible task? I’ve heard no one suggest such an action.

    I can understand why someone may carry a gun outside his/her home. Sometimes people carry valuables or money and venture into unsafe areas. I don’t do either. I’d rather give a robber the twenty bucks I might have in my pocket than chance a gunfight – not merely because I might be the slower draw but I don’t want to be robbed of my home, savings, etc. in the lawsuit that is destined to follow. If he’s in my house and threatens me, I might shoot him though I’d be more inclined to run out the back door.

  37. Most carriers that I’ve talked to, are prepared to do just that, give the robber what they want. Firearms are the last resort.

    Of course, confiscation would come incrementally. DC, Chicago, etc, were once armed. Now, not so much. Think of the law abiding citizens that would turn in guns because they would be considered illegal. Brits and Aussies did it by the millions. Then would come the buy backs and amnesties. Then, if you were found with a gun, say in defense against a burglar, you too would be charged. Registration would allow the cops to come to your home. Unless there was coordinated resistance, no one could stand up to the cops. Illegal ownership in New York is a felony. Even if you inherit a gun and don’t register it. Cops have been known to call families and notify them that they need to turn in a gun that a family member had. Heirloom or not…….

    In New Orleans, the cops would ask a citizen, “Are you armed?” and the citizen, thinking that the cops wanted to know if they had protection, answered “yes”, Then the cops said, “let me see it…” And when it came out, seized it, sometimes with the help of the National Guard. Thousands of firearms were seized, no receipts, no records, stored in conex boxes where they were damaged by rust.

    That is who would seize the guns. Registration would be the first step. And some gun owners would resist. They have vowed to resist. And the question remains, “When should a free citizen take up arms to defend their rights and freedoms?

  38. @cargosquid

    I fixed it because of the email. I thought I answered you but maybe not. I have been working and it does something bad to my brain.

  39. @Wolverine

    I am tweeked. I don’t approve of those examples you printed either. I never paid much attention to the anti war crowd though.

    Now for my defense…There was a question mark after the title. Gotta capture the attention. And I did ask for explanation rather than issue condemnation. I thought I was horribly fair, especially considering so many of our regulars are ‘gun folks.’

    I actually thought it generated some decent discussion. Cargo told us it was a morphed video, which was obvious but …perhaps needed to be emphasized. He and others also brought up the point of some of it being a rally or cheering squad and that often people use hyperbole in settings like that. There certainly is a lot of violence espoused at a football game, for instance.

    I don’t know…..I merely quoted someone in the crowd….[polishing halo.]

  40. Censored bybvbl

    Cargosquid, I guess that I haven’t paid much attention to the paperwork that accompanies gun sales. I assumed when one bought a gun that the state did maintain a registry of who owned that weapon. (My husband bought our gun at a local gun shop.) So gun registration doesn’t bother me. I assumed , even if wrongly, that the state already knew about my gun.

    I can understand why weapons were confiscated in New Orleans. It had the potential to become the Wild West. And, yes, it left potential victims at a disadvantage. I can also understand, given the upheavel and weather factors, why confiscated guns could be damaged or lost.

    I guess what I fail to understand (or feel that I do understand and want reasonable people to prove me wrong) is why the urgency now. To me it appears more related to a Democrat having won the last election than to any substantial – or even small – change in gun laws. More discontent in the country is caused by economic problems, yet too many Republicans are treating an inquiry into banks, SEC, GS, etc. as a partisan problem. It’s hard for me to support a strictly free market economy when I can witness the mess it’s given us. Is it the fear over economic issues and HCR that’s driving the gun rights movement as well? Just another socialist peg in the coffin? A reason for armed rebellion? I don’t remember liberals running out and buying guns when Newt introduced his Contract with America.

  41. The increase in arms buying is a direct result of the failed “assault weapon” ban. The fear was and is, that now that the same people that promoted that ban are in power, with no checks other than popular opinion, 2nd Amend. rights needs to be promoted. Those of us that pay attention to this fight, keep track of what the other side is doing. Obama is not putting gun control on the agenda at this time, mainly because that fight would distract and detract from his agenda of centralizing power. No, not like a dictator, well, classic dictator….like a progressive.

    The “inquiry” in to the Banks, SEC, and GS is a partisan problem. All of the “players” are friends of the Democrats or are democrats. GS gave Obama almost a million bucks. Franks and Dodd were part of the Freddie and Fannie cover up. Goldman Sachs personnel are all over Treasury and the Fed. Yes, Bush was chummy with them too, but its gotten worse. Skepticism is a good idea when Congress and the SEC suddenly wants to “investigate” GS when GS’s CEO is visiting with Obama the same week on friendly terms. This whole administration is full of crony capitalism.

    The economics and HCR problems are driving the Tea Parties, not the gun rights movements, though there is some overlap, ie people like me. Liberals didn’t go out to buy guns when Newt took over because the GOP wasn’t trying to take guns. Clinton was. The liberals liked the Assault weapon ban. Btw, there is no such thing as an assault weapon.

    Our financial markets haven’t been free markets for 100 years. Between the Fed, SEC, Wilson, Hoover, and FDR, our financial markets have been regulated more heavily than even the gun industry and consisted of crony capitalism with the bigger banks gaining influence over the competition. Dodd’s new bill helps only big banks. Money talks.

    A POTENTIAL for the Wild West is not enough reason to illegally confiscate firearms. As was decided by the courts. Even FEMA cannot keep out firearms of “refugee camps.” The funny thing is that the Wild West was a myth. Today’s cities are much worse, per capita. Again, confiscation protects no one from criminals. Even cops aren’t more protected, as the bad guys, STILL have their guns.

Comments are closed.