andy-parker-01-800

Washingtonpost.com:

A state senator from southwest Virginia told police Wednesday that he felt threatened by the father of the Roanoke TV reporter fatally shot during a live broadcast in August.

Andy Parker has become the public face of gun-control efforts in Virginia in the aftermath of his daughter’s slaying, appearing with Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), campaigning for legislative candidates who favor gun control, and starring in TV commercials that are part of a $2.2 million ad buy bankrolled by former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s gun safety group.

Late Tuesday, Parker sent this message to Sen. William M. Stanley Jr. (R-Franklin), via Facebook: “I’m going to be your worst nightmare you little bastard.”

“I take this very seriously as a threat against the safety of my family,” said Stanley, who has received an A rating from the National Rifle Association. He said he contacted Capitol Police and the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, and picked up applications for concealed handgun permits for himself and his wife because of the message.

“We are proud firearms owners, but I never felt the need for a concealed-carry permit until now,” Stanley said.

Parker confirmed that he sent the message but said the intended threat was only political.

“I don’t own a gun,” Parker said. “I have a pellet gun, that’s it. . . . If he thinks I’m going to be a threat to him other than a political threat, that is just mind-boggling.”

Parker sent Stanley another Facebook message after a Washington Post reporter contacted him about the alleged threat.

“Thank you again for providing me another opportunity to call you out in the press because I ‘frightened’ you,” Parker wrote. “You’re the only person I know that would try to turn me into a threatening bad guy. I love it.”

Not to be the pop culture queen, but, “I will be your worst nightmare” is an expression, a trope.  “You little bastard” is name calling, not a threat.   I think Senator Stanley might be getting a little hysterical.  I just heard Carley Fiorina make the statement, directed at Hillary, that she was going to be her worst nightmare just tonight.  I doubt that Hillary is going to go all wuss over her saying that.

Andy Parker’s daughter was killed.  He is doing what he passionately believes in.  I smirk over Stanley turning a popular expression from a movie  into a threat.  How ridiculous.   Stanley is under 50.  Surely he understands pop expressions and movie tropes.

Update from the Washingtonpost.com:

The father of the Roanoke TV reporter fatally shot during a live broadcast last summer apologized Thursday for harsh Facebook messages that prompted a pro-gun legislator from southwest Virginia to call law enforcement authorities.

“In my grief over the murder of my daughter and my anger over a political system that allows incidents like that to continue, I spoke regrettably,” Andy Parker said in a message issued by a gun-control group that has featured him in a $2.2 million TV ad campaign. “I apologize for my words, but make no mistake, I will continue to seek justice and change as a father in memory of my daughter.”

The apology stemmed from a message sent to Sen. William M. Stanley Jr. (R-Franklin). Parker has become increasingly critical of the lawmaker’s stance on guns and wrote Tuesday night, “I’m going to be your worst nightmare you little bastard.”

I wonder if Carley will apologize to Hillary?

 

 

68 thoughts on “Andy Parker: Whatever it takes

  1. Emma

    How hard is it for gun-control advocates to ever blame the shooter himself for the crime?

    I would challenge anyone who thinks sending a message to a public official that says “I’ll be your worst nightmare” is no big deal to go ahead and try that on the POTUS’s Facebook page.

    1. Should Hillary call out the secret service because Carley said that on national TV to her? Honest, Fiorina said it last night, as I was preparing the post.

      I think the POTUS is a little different. Very little free speech on planes also. The bar is just a little higher. If I said I was going to hi jack a plane sitting in a bar it would be treated differently than if I were boarding a plane.

    2. Of course the shooters are blamed. Usually they are dead and often clues are illusive and non-specific. You can blame all you want. What will that get you? How are other deaths prevented?

      Some people shouldn’t own guns or have access to them. We are going to have to come up with a better plan to weeding those people out. Right now, we are just hoping for the best. We are on an op out plan. I think eventually we will have to have an opt in plan with some criteria on just who gets to be a part of the brotherhood.

      Opt in should include skill and temperament. Most people would pass muster.

  2. Scout

    If my daughter had been gunned down on live television, I might find myself given over to intemperate language from time to time, particularly toward pols whose approach to gun issues seems to completely ignore the cumulative trauma of thousands of senseless deaths by firearms in this country. The irony is that Senator Stanley’s first reaction is figuratively to reach for a gun.

    1. As I was preparing the post, I heard Carley Fiorina make the statement that she would be HJilary’s worst nightmare. I wondered if the double standard would be thrown down. I see nothing wrong with the expression.

  3. Emma

    No, this is the real irony:

    “Not long after his daughter’s death, Parker told an interviewer that he was considering buying a gun to protect himself against a potential attack by someone opposed to gun control.”

  4. Steve Thomas

    Emma :
    No, this is the real irony:
    “Not long after his daughter’s death, Parker told an interviewer that he was considering buying a gun to protect himself against a potential attack by someone opposed to gun control.”

    And an even bigger irony: None of the “reasonable” gun controls being proposed by Parker and those he is supporting, would have prevented his daughter’s tragic murder. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

    If you do a bit of research on Mr. Parker, you’ll find he was an anti-2nd amendment aspiring candidate BEFORE his daughter was murdered by a psychotic lefty, and the irony continues. Had he and his daughter’s murderer sat down and discussed politics and social issues, they’d have found themselves in agreement on much.

    1. Psychotic lefty? Come on! Documentation please on the politics of the shooter and Andy.

  5. Steve Thomas

    @Scout
    “If my daughter had been gunned down on live television, I might find myself given over to intemperate language from time to time,”

    I would be prone to more than “intemperate language”, but I wouldn’t blame an inanimate object. If my daughter were killed by a drink driver, I wouldn’t blame alcohol or automobiles. I’d blame the person who did it.

    “particularly toward pols whose approach to gun issues seems to completely ignore the cumulative trauma of thousands of senseless deaths by firearms in this country.”

    Are there really “thousands of senseless deaths by firearms”, or is this an intellectually dishonest statement? I say it is. First, a firearm, in and of itself cannot function independently of a human who operates it, unless the firearm is defective either by design-flaw, or some malfunctioning part. Second, we know that about 60% of those approximately 32,000 who die from gunshot-wound are suicides. The shooter and the victim are one and the same. Are all suicides “senseless”. I guess that would depend on the situation the victim/perpetrator of the crime was trying to escape.

    Approximately 3% of deaths by gunshot are “accidental”, or “negligent”. A small portion of these are collateral damage from Law Enforcement engaging in gunfights with criminals, and someone else catches an errant round or a “thru-and-thru” fired by a police officer. A statistically insignificant number are collateral damage from an armed citizen engaging in self-defense, and an errant round or over-penetration hits an innocent. These would be what are classified as “accidental”. Negligent discharges, by police, private citizens, and yes, criminals, make up the remainder of “accidental” deaths by gunshot.

    It is the remaining 11,000 or so that are actually ruled as “homicides” where the shooter intended to shoot the person who died as a result of being shot. A huge percentage of these are criminals shooting other criminals, which makes sense, as that is what criminals do. Another category is criminals using firearms in the commission of another crime, like rape, robbery, home-invasion, etc. which makes sense, is that is what criminals do. Another category is Law Enforcement shooting criminals, which makes sense, because when a criminal threatens a cop with death or bodily injury, a cop may use the tool they have been issued to stop the attack. A smaller category is private citizens using lawfully owned firearms to defend themselves against criminals, which makes sense, as the right of the individual to preserve their own life, or the life of an innocent is pretty damned fundamental.

    So, how many of these “gun-deaths” are “senseless”? I would argue very few. If we as a nation banned the private ownership of firearms, completely, would that end suicides, or would someone intent on killing themselves simply choose another method? Would criminals turn in their guns, or failing to obtain one, leave their lives of crime, or would they simply use the myriad of other inanimate objects available as weapons to kill other criminals, or innocent victims? Would “disarmed” civilians just sit around waiting to be preyed upon, or would they too improvise means of delivering lethal force, when confronted with the same? Many would.

    1. Steve said: “I would be prone to more than “intemperate language”, but I wouldn’t blame an inanimate object. If my daughter were killed by a drink driver, I wouldn’t blame alcohol or automobiles. I’d blame the person who did it.”

      Wouldn’t you do something to try to eliminate drunk driving? A driver without booze is fairly harmless. Booze without a driver, just sitting on the shelf is pretty harmless. Its the combination of someone who drinks too much booze getting behind the wheel of a car and driving.

      I can’t discuss these things in isolation. Drunk driving, crazy killing….all needs to be dealt with.

      Actually the post was about Stanley being such a wuss. Good for Andy Parker though for dedicating his life to ending gun violence or at least taking a big chunk out of it. He can’t go after the perp. He’s dead.

      I don’t think Andy wants to take everyone’s firearms. I don’t think he wants to ban the private ownership of guns. I believe he wants a few check points along the way. I get the feeling that every time we have these discussions, it always goes to the extreme.

  6. Ed Myers

    Handguns are defective. We need new and improved handguns that cannot be easily stolen and used to commit murder. We need guns that children are unable to use to kill themselves or others. If any other product had the accidental death toll of guns and the net negative value to society the Consumer Products Safety Commission would require a recall and retrofit. Because of the number of handguns already in society the best approach is to reformulate safer ammunition. We need to hold gun owners responsible collectively for creating a gun culture and require them to pay for the costs of gun violence rather than forcing the cost of exercising their right to own a gun onto the whole of society.

    Hollywood should have fewer unrealistic shows where handguns are magic in the hands of the good and typically fail in the hands of the bad. Sitcoms should compensate for all the pro-gun programming in drama and police shows with illustrations of people making stupid choices with handguns and the bad effects thereof. Shame works on some people.

    Schools need to teach young children to identify guns and learn not to touch them before alerting an adult. If they forced gun owning parents to view gun violence snuff videos like they show texting and driving snuff videos to parents of children taking drivers ed, then society might learn to be more respectful of guns, especially handguns.

  7. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    Psychotic lefty? Come on! Documentation please on the politics of the shooter and Andy.

    Which part are you asking me to defend? That the shooter was psychotic, or his politics decidedly on the Left?

    He was Psychotic:

    Exhibit A: He committed murder for perceived injustice, filmed it, and posted this to social media. He sent a multi-page manifesto to ABC news, in conjunction with the murder.

    Exhibit B: LEO reports of the results of the search of Vester Flanagan’s apartment indicate his walls we covered with photos of himself.

    Exhibit C: When he was dismissed from his job, he refused to leave and had to be forcibly removed from the premises.

    Exhibit D: Pre-murder and Post-murder statements made by co-workers regarding Flanagan indicate that he saw “micro-aggression” and “discrimination” due to his race and sexual orientation everywhere, and reacted to these perceived slights in inappropriate ways.

    Exhibit E: He took offense at the most inoffensive things. He took the time to write several Roanoke businesses to complain that their staff ended their interactions with “Have a nice day”, rather than “Thank You”. Only a crazy person would do this. http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/roanoke-business-owner-speaks-out-about-letters-from-vester-flanagan/34981346

    Vester Lee Flanagan was a Lefty:

    Exhibit A: He was reprimanded for wearing an Obama sticker, while doing live reports on election day. People on the right didn’t vote for Obama, and certainly wouldn’t think it appropriate for a member of the supposed “un-biased media” to wear an Obama sticker on-camera.

    Exhibit B: Not only did he frequently “play the race card” he actually cited this as one of his motives in choosing his targets as his desire to seek revenge on whites for Dylan Roof’s murder of blacks in Charleston. Expressed in his manifesto sent to ABC news.

    Exhibit C: He basked in perpetual victim-hood. Nothing was ever his fault. It was a result of White/Straight men and woman being racist and homophobic and his attempts to seek “justice” via the EEOC were ignored as his manifesto’s twitter, and facebook posts clearly indicate.

    As far as “Andy” goes, his 2007 run for VA-16 HOD seat is a matter of public record, and during that election he was rated “D” by the NRA. The NRA only issues ratings to challengers who lack a legislative record that return and NRA survey. The NRA rated him “D” based upon his answers. He was not rated by the VCDL, because he did not return a survey. a This information is available to anyone willing to use the google-machine to find links to the source docs. So, on this alone, I rest my case.

    1. I have no problem with the psychotic label, although there may be a different psychological for it. I would agree with you on that one. Lefty? not so much. Wearing an Obama sticker doesn’t make you a leftie. (although I agree that he shouldn’t have been wearing it on the job)

      None of the other things you cited make him a “leftie” to me. “Basking in victimhood” is certainly not exclusively a leftie characteristic. I am not ready to declare Q.E.D. yet.

      I don’t think a D issued by the NRA makes a person a leftie or a rightie. Of course, you know the value I place on the NRA. When I was growing up, they were a nice, family organization. Not so much now. My main objection to them remains that they are just too binary.

      People who want to set some limits on the 2nd amendment are not necessarily anti second amendment. People who want to set some limits on the first amendment aren’t necessarily against free speech. Example: I am very much for free speech. However, I don’t think that kid had a right to disrupt class, I don’t like pan-handling at intersections, and I don’t want to hear the F bomb dropped on network TV at 8 pm. I would also like to be able to eat my lunch in front of the TV with household members without having to hear about every sexual dysfunction known to modern man. Perhaps I am just being picky.

      I just don’t think that the 2nd amendment means everyone. Obviously neither does anyone else. It is already restricted.

      Seeking racial revenge–racist but not leftist.

  8. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “I don’t think Andy wants to take everyone’s firearms. I don’t think he wants to ban the private ownership of guns. I believe he wants a few check points along the way. I get the feeling that every time we have these discussions, it always goes to the extreme.”

    And you base this on what, exactly? I’m basing my views on his 2007 “D” rating from the NRA. You have to be pretty darn anti-2A to earn a “D”, especially when this was pre-Bloomburg “Everytown” and there was less financial incentive to earn those “D” and “F” grades. As far a what he’s advocating for today, it’s just the same line as everyone spouts, when on the Bloomberg payroll: “Universal” “Reasonable” which are just incremental steps to “Safe Act” registrations and confiscation schemes.

    1. I expect as a gun owner they would give me an F. I wouldn’t be lucky enough to get a D.

  9. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “Wouldn’t you do something to try to eliminate drunk driving?”

    Sure. I’d want penalties for drunk driving convictions increased. I’d want penalties for habitual offenders increased. I’d want offenders actually prosecuted for the crime, and not allowed to plead down to a lesser charge. I wouldn’t call for suing Gray Goose and Ford. I wouldn’t call for limiting the size of bottles that could be purchased, or the horsepower of automobiles.

    But why don’t we go all out and mandate inter-locks on all automobiles. Want to start your car? Blow in the tube first. Of course someone could get around this by having a sober person blow for them, but we have to do SOMETHING, and it’s “REASONABLE”, and “really” doesn’t infringe on your rights. The “hoops” and the “cost” of retrofitting an older car aren’t that “onerous” that the constitute a material infringement, and so what if they could be illegally intentionally circumvented by someone with technical knowhow, not to mention could fail at a time when you need to legitimately start your car, and the failure could endanger you

    ” A driver without booze is fairly harmless.”

    Really? What about distracted drivers? What about reckless drivers? I drive about 2000 miles per month for work, and I see all manner of unsafe things, all of which are potentially harmful to the driver and others, none of which involve alcohol. Women applying make-up while driving, smoking and talking on a cell-phone (women are great multi-taskers), while driving. Men shaving while driving (men aren’t as good at multi-tasking) Men and women texting, young people bee-bopping to their thumps-in-a-bumps music, weaving in and out of traffic to the beat. I see it every single day.

    ” Booze without a driver, just sitting on the shelf is pretty harmless. Its the combination of someone who drinks too much booze getting behind the wheel of a car and driving.”

    So it’s not the booze, its the poor judgement of the driver? A selfish lack of concern for others? A gun in a holster or a safe is pretty harmless too. Its the combination of a firearm and someone with evil in their hearts that leads to unjustifiable homicide. Someone has to choose to drink and drive. Someone has to choose to pull the trigger. Yet with DUI, we target the individual for their actions. If someone is legally allowed to purchase and possess alcohol, we don’t limit the amount they can purchase or possess. We just criminalize being drunk in public, or driving while drunk, in much the same way that we criminalize brandishing a firearm, or assaulting someone with a firearm. If a drunk driver kills someone, we prosecute them for manslaughter, in much the same way we’d prosecute an unjustifiable use of deadly force with murder or manslaughter charges.

    1. and yet…drunk driving and homicidal rage are really 2 very different things.

      You try to do something in each case, especially if it affects you personally. Most people I know don’t want to outlaw guns at all. They want to restrict who gets guns.

      I hate to say this, but I don’t think most people are up in arms over suicides or crime. They are up in arms over mass murders.

  10. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “Of course the shooters are blamed. Usually they are dead and often clues are illusive and non-specific. You can blame all you want. What will that get you? How are other deaths prevented?”

    This where you are wrong. See, the media focuses on sensational “spree-killings” which are both rare, and the victims of spree-killers make up a very small percentage of the total. True, in many cases the spree-killer ends up dead, usually by their own hand, but in many the shooter is apprehended and put on trial. The Aurora shooter is on trial. The Tuscon shooter was tried. Ft. Hood shooter 1 was tried, but Ft. Hood shooter 2 died at his own hand. Dylan Roof will be tried.

    But where you err further in that statement is most “gun-violence” is gang or drug related, and involves young, minority males, killing young minority males. What astounds me is some psycho shoots 3 white people on camera, politicians on the left (they are all on the left) are holding press conferences within MINUTES of the murder (Terry Mcawful was calling for gun control while Vester Flanagan was running up 81, and before the bodies had been removed from the scene), yet in “ChIRAQ” they average over 20 shootings per week, with and average of 2 deaths per week. To there have been 2518 people shot, with 377 dying…and the politicians say little. Why? Because these are overwhelmingly gang/drug related, and involve minority shooters and minority victims. It’s only when some innocent toddler or highschool kid at a bus stop catches a stray bullet, is anything said, and what is said is “we need more background checks”. “we need to ban scary black rifles”. “we need to limit magazine capacity”. None of which will stop a thug from trying to shoot another thug, trying to protect their corner from which their drugs are sold.

    “Andy” is a shill for Bloomberg. He was anti-2nd Amendment in 2007, and he’s even more anti-2nd amendment now. My sympathies are for his daughter, who by all accounts was a decent, productive person. I can even sympathize with “Andy” as I would with any father who has outlived their child. But once the voluntarily throws in with the likes of Bloomberg, he’s trying to infringe on my second amendment rights….and I will take the gloves off.

    1. @Steve–I don’t think its unusual for someone to latch on to whoever is going to make one’s mission possible. for every Bloomberg shill there is an NRA shill.

      I don’t recall saying that most gun deaths are spree killings. I believe I was referencing my remarks to spree killings.

      I would agree that most gun deaths are related to crime.

    2. @Steve–I don’t think its unusual for someone to latch on to whoever is going to make one’s mission possible. for every Bloomberg shill there is an NRA shill.

      I don’t recall saying that most gun deaths are spree killings. I believe I was referencing my remarks to spree killings.

      I would agree that most gun deaths are related to crime.

  11. Steve Thomas

    @Ed Myers
    Ed,

    About the only element of your unrealistic rant that I can agree with is this:

    “Schools need to teach young children to identify guns and learn not to touch them before alerting an adult.”

    The NRA’s Eddie Eagle program teaches this very thing, and is FREE to any school that want to teach kids who encounter a firearm to “Stop! Don’t Touch! Leave the Area! Tell and adult!”

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation and 4H Shooting Sports Program, also teach gun-safety to kids, and safe use and handling to older youths.

    But “Everytown for Gun Saftey” doesn’t teach gun safety. They push of restrictive laws. “Moms Demand Action for Gun Safety” doesn’t teach gun safety either. Same for all of the other ant-second amendment organizations who’ve all re-branded their names to include “Safety”. Not because they care about “safety”, but because “safety” is “reasonable” and focus-grouped well.

    1. The Boy Scouts also have very decent gun training. There is no hidden agenda there that I am aware of.

  12. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “I think eventually we will have to have an opt in plan with some criteria on just who gets to be a part of the brotherhood. ”

    We have an opt in system. Its called being a law abiding citizen. One has a right to keep and bear arms. One must be judged via due process to lose a right. One does not get judged by some arbitrary politician to be allowed to exercise a privilege.

  13. Emma

    @Cargosquid Ooh, ooh, can I opt in??? After all, I’m pretty sure my demographic of middle-aged, suburban females who drive Mom-mobiles haven’t historically posed much of a threat. Surely that should guarantee my Constitutional rights?

  14. Cargosquid

    @Emma
    I don’t know…..do you vote Democrat? We’ll have to check.

    1. I voted both. Does that make me schizo?

  15. Cargosquid

    Anyway…I thought people might like to think what someone that is considered a popular gun blogger thinks of this.

    http://www.pagunblog.com/2015/10/29/andy-parker-is-a-whackjob-but-this-is-clearly-not-a-threat/

    “Parker may not be violent, but he’s pretty clearly a loose cannon. He’ll probably end up being a liability to their movement if he keeps this up.”

    1. Thanks. I don’t know what Parker is advocating. I haven’t followed him. I just know that he doesn’t want to round up everyone’s guns. However, I think Stanley is being a cry baby.

      I also think it is a shame that Hal Parrish has allowed himself to be branded by the right to life groups and the NRA groups. He is a decent man and I like him. I just can’t vote for him after he sold out. I didn’t even know about the NRA stuff. There is so much more to Mr. Parrish than those two hot issues. It’s just too bad that these issues polarize us so much. Cargo, I am not blaming you. I am just as much reproductive rights nut as you are a gun nut. I just hate seeing McPike and Parrish reduced to these two issues. I believe that the entire election, regardless of who wins, is dishonest.

  16. @Cargosquid

    It actually takes a little more than being a law-abiding citizen. There are plenty of developmentally impaired people who have never committed a crime or broken the law who aren’t allowed to have guns.

    If I were the gun goddess, I would probably have a certain class of guns with an opt in clause.
    Those who got to own certain guns would have to demonstrate sanity and law-abidingness.

    I expect you wouldn’t like it if I got to be the gun goddess.

  17. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “One must be judged via due process to lose a right.”

    Those deemed mentally incompetent or a danger through due process. That is why I included it. Until then, you have the right.

    I expect you are right. I also expect that you would have massive resistance and non-compliance.

  18. Steve Thomas

    Moon,

    Here’s the part of the story that hasn’t been mentioned in the media: Parker also left this comment on the Senator’s facebook: “You’re finest moment, you sorry little coward. You didn’t even have the decency to reach out and offer a lame condolence after my daughter Allison Bailey was murdered in your district. When you see me again, you best walk the other way lest I beat your little ass with my bare hands.”

    That certainly looks like more than a rhetorical threat to me. Our low-rent governor, who’s publicly commented that the senator needs to “man up” would likely send the VASP to see me if I left a similar comment on his page.

    Your friend “Andy” seems a bit unhinged, with “homicidal rage”. I don’t blame the Senator one bit for getting a chp. Discretion is the better part of valor.

    1. That sounds like a threat to me. However, worst nightmare isn’t. Why is Andy MY friend? I have tried very hard to keep this blog exchange neutral. I keep getting hung as a leftie friend of Andy. Hell, I feel horrible for Andy and any other parent who has lost a child. I came close enough myself to not have it impact me. There for the grace of God go I.

      I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Andy. I haven’t paid that much attention to what he is saying. I don’t like it that he referenced Hal Parrish as a coward either. I won’t vote for Hal because of his zoning vote but that doesn’t mean that I don’t like him as a human being and I certainly don’t think he is a coward. I just disagree with him politically.

  19. Steve Thomas

    @Cargosquid
    Cargo,

    Have you seen the reports out of NY, CT, WA, and OR? Massive non-compliance. NY estimates about 12% compliance and was preparing to mobilize law-enforcement to force compliance…until they pulled a list of cops who own non-compliant firearms. They concluded that 68% of these cops were ignoring the law. Similar experience reported in CT.

    They can try to ban, or make registration mandatory, but lack the will and means to enforce it. They seem to forget that our founders were insurrectionists, and our revolution was built upon government intrusion into the homes of the colonists, a 3% tax, but what really triggered armed resistance was an attempt by the government to disarm the people. The redcoats weren’t marching on Lexington and Concord to enforce environmental regulations, they were marching to seize guns, powder and shot.

    1. Then there was John Brown….

  20. @Cargosquid
    And if there was massive resistance and non-compliance, that blows the law-abiding aspect of it.

    I think we fundamentally disagree on birthright to a gun.

    My biggest problem with your stance and Steve’s is that you would easily place me as an anti 2nd amendment person, even though I am a gun owner simply because I would triage types of guns and I would consider an opt in program for some times of guns. I might consider an opt in program also. I am not sure but I don’t believe in waiting until some people commit crimes before taking away their gun rights.

    Then there is that reproductive rights thing…you would take away my constitutionally guaranteed rights far quicker than I would take away your rights. The two situations can’t be compared other than constitutionality. I am not sure that enumeration trumps other types of guarantees.

  21. Steve Thomas

    ” I am not sure that enumeration trumps other types of guarantees.”

    It does when judicial review of the constitutionality of laws is considered, or at least it is supposed to be. Enumeration is supposed to trigger “strict scrutiny” whereby the bar for individual infringement is very high, while “implied” is supposed to trigger “intermediate scrutiny”, with a lower bar. Alas, many of our circuit courts and law-makers either fail to grasp this established concept, or ignore it completely.

    “My biggest problem with your stance and Steve’s is that you would easily place me as an anti 2nd amendment person, even though I am a gun owner simply because I would triage types of guns and I would consider an opt in program for some times of guns.”

    I wouldn’t classify you as “anti-Second Amendment” per se. I just think the right isn’t paramount on your list of valued liberties. I wonder what your view would be if the government began threatening to censor your blog. You are a law-abiding, responsible citizen. You have self-regulated what you are willing to post here, and have ground-rules for what is acceptable regarding commentary. What if certain law-makers began advocating for applying rules that said “you can comment on these things, but can’t comment on these other things”. Or, “even though you’ve not been found mentally defective by a court, we think your writings are kinda kooky, therefore you will no longer be allowed to have a blog at all”. Or even better, “You can have your blog, as long as you don’t allow certain people to post on it”. Or what about this: “You can have your blog, but are limited to 2 posts per day, and must register your blog with the FCC. If you want to change ownership of your blog, you need to fill out a form, pay a fee, and the person you are transferring it to, also needs to pass our process, then you can transfer it”.

    “Then there is that reproductive rights thing…you would take away my constitutionally guaranteed rights far quicker than I would take away your rights.”

    Really? That is a specious claim. Prior to 1973, abortion was illegal in some states, and legal in others. Why? Because some states viewed abortion as “Malum prohibitum” (Bad because it’s prohibited) while others viewed it as “Malum in se” (Bad because it IS). SCOTUS in 1973 removed the “Malum Prohibitum” issue, but is powerless to remove the “Malum in se” objections, and the (I’ll be respectful here) “pro-choice” movement has been unsuccessful in defeating the “in se” arguments.

    Now, I will agree, 100% that laws banning contraception needed to be struck down, as they failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest in maintaining them. These laws could only satisfy the “prohibitum” argument, but failed the “in se”.

    Abortion has been much harder to defend. While the “prohibitum” argument was dealt with by the SCOTUS, don’t forget their original ruling allowed “unrestricted access”…a woman could terminate a pregnancy at anytime, for any reason, on-demand. Opponents of abortion have done a good job at attacking abortion from the “in se” perspective, to where there are certain restrictions with regards to viability, methods, etc.

    The 2nd Amendment was an enumerated, individual right, which those who wrote it, and ratified it, understood it to be an absolute right, and “shall not be infringed”. There was no “Malum Prohibitum” or “Malum in se” arguments to be made at the Federal level. From 1791 to 1934, individual states regulated firearms, in accordance with the 10th amendment. What is different from Roe v. Wade, the court recognized an “absolute right” that wasn’t enumerated within the 1, 4, 5, and 9 and applied to to the states, under the 14th amendment. The National Firearms Act infringed on a right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, and used the commerce clause and supremacy clause to force this upon the states, which also infringed upon the 10th amendment.

    If someone keeps and bears arms, there is no guaranty that harm will come to another in the exercise of this right, and there is a chance that the life and liberty of the person exercising this right will be protected against some who would deprive them of both. If someone terminates a pregnancy, there is an absolute guaranty that harm will come to another, whose continued existence does, in most cases, constitute a threat to the individual right to life and liberty of the person exercising their “reproductive rights”. Malum Prohibitum or Malum en se?

    I think this is why the left is having a much harder time successfully demonizing the NRA, while the right has been successful in demonizing Planned Parenthood….that and the fact that Planned Parenthood receives public funding, while the NRA does not.

  22. Steve Thomas

    ” If someone terminates a pregnancy, there is an absolute guaranty that harm will come to another, whose continued existence does, in most cases, constitute a threat to the individual right to life and liberty of the person exercising their “reproductive rights”.

    Should read “does NOT, in most cases”

    1. Personhood has not been established. Embryos don’t have the same rights as sentient women. Should they? Some people think yes, other people think no.

      Termination isn’t quite as cut and dry as it seems. Can the fetus survive on its own own outside the womb seems to be a real issue when discussing personhood. Naturally the closer to term one gets, the more repugnant abortion becomes. At the cellular level, we have to ask, does this group of cells have the same rights as a reproductively mature woman?

      However, I don’t think you can compare the guts of gun rights to the guts of abortion rights. You really hit the nail on the head earlier…it just isn’t the issue for me to fall on my sword over. Reproductive rights all have to do with my female offsprings’ ability to earn a decent living.

      Anyone who doesn’t understand the economics of it all never lived before it really stopped being an issue.

  23. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “And if there was massive resistance and non-compliance, that blows the law-abiding aspect of it.”

    There is currently 95% non-compliance with the NY Safe Act on the registration and disposing of rifles. Resistance against tyranny is good. The US has a long tradition of civil disobedience.

    And I will merely agree and support Steve’s masterful argument in response to your comment. I cannot say it better than that.

    1. It didn’t work out so well for the South…

  24. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    When I referred to “Andy” as “your friend”, I was being glib. You repeatedly referred to Parker in a familiar sense, and were saying things like ” I don’t think Andy wants to take away your guns…” like you regularly have conversations with him.

      1. Actually I said Andy because I never remember his last name. Shame on me for bring so familiar.
  25. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    It didn’t work out so well for the South…

    The “math” was against the South from day one, in terms of population, available arms, money, and an industrial base that could sustain a war. About the only things the South had were, they were primarily fighting a defensive war, had an agrarian economy that could feed their troops, troops that were more familiar with arms, and better officers to lead them.

    The math re: firearms confiscation is reversed. There are an estimated 100 million gun owners who possess over 300 million firearms. Many of these private citizens are veterans, the vast majority having served in combat over the last 14 years, and these veterans have learned 1st hand how to fight in an “asynchronous” environment. There are schools popping up all over the country that teach individual and small unit tactics. 1000 former Green Berets sent a letter to the President, telling him if he tried to disarm the people, they would use their training to “do what they do”, in response.

    On the Fed side: 100,000 federal law enforcement, if they grabbed up every park-ranger and postal-inspector. Declaring martial law would be required to bring in the military, and some portion of the forces would refuse to comply. If 2/3’s of the military remained loyal to the Federal government, they’d have a couple million max. The Federal government has no idea where the guns are, and who owns them.

    Some portion of 100 million, with some portion of 300 million guns, and a large portion having previous military training vs 2.1 million feds? I’m thinking the math doesn’t work out real well for the Feds here, and NO I do not want it to get to this point.

    1. I think it is horrible and paranoid of the green berets (I hope former) to send that kind of letter to the President. Why would they think that? He has never indicated that he wants to take away guns or disarm the population.

  26. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    Personhood has not been established. Embryos don’t have the same rights as sentient women. Should they? Some people think yes, other people think no.

    Do you really want to make this argument? Personhood has been established, just not in the case of abortion. Let someone murder a pregnant woman and see if they don’t get charged and eventually convicted of 2 murders. Let someone assault a pregnant woman, who loses their child as a result, and see if that perp isn’t charged with murder or manslaughter. For some reason, we allow the mother the “right” to terminate a pregnancy (prior to a certain point of gestation) but will prosecute that same mother, and the doctor who performs an abortion after a certain point. So, there is a point where “personhood” is understood, even if phrased in terms of “viability”. Is this a “Prohibitum” argument, or “in se” argument? That is the question and the fight…which the “pro-choice” crowd has been losing since 1973.

    1. That is a fairly new law. It generally applies to post-viability. I don’t think it has ever applied to pre-viability pregnancies. I could be wrong but I can’t think of any cases. Viability is a big deal.

      Personhood is still a slippery slope. 14th amendment and all seems to be the anchor. What cases do you know of where a mother has been prosecuted prior to birth? I know of none.

      Finally, it all depends on priority–some people are woman focused, some are fetus focused.

  27. Censored bybvbl

    @Steve Thomas

    Concerning your #44: You can bet that the FBI and other state and local LE agencies have infiltrated those groups. Don’t overestimate the numbers of retired military, gun owners, and federal agents who want to overthrow the elected government of the United States. It may be your’s and Cargo’s dream, but the majority of citizens aren’t interested in living in a banana republic run by dictator wannabes.

  28. Scout

    Yup. That’s ironic, too. Double irony.

  29. Scout

    Last comment was directed at Emma #6

  30. Steve Thomas

    Censored,
    Your inane comment adds nothing to the conversation, nor does it take into account any of my points. Frankly, I think the entire discussion has been diminished by your joining in. Therefore I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  31. BSinVA

    @Steve Thomas

    Hee hee. I’m not the least interested if you award me “points” or not. It’s funny how you’re always an expert on everything -and always quick to call anyone who disagrees with you names. I’d suggest anger management or perhaps exposure to more opinions than your own.

    I’ve known plenty of LEOs and ex-military men and women and never heard any of them suggest that they’re ready to fire on any state or federal agents who are carrying out the law. If NY residents vote to limit the types or numbers of firearms a person can own, who do you think you are that you should blatantly disobey the law if you were a NY state resident? Cargo has stated that he would be a member of the 85% who would refuse to hand over his guns. What’s he going to do? Shoot a state agent? Hide the weapons? Try to organize a rebellion? There are plenty of gun owners who don’t mind further regulation and certainly shouldn’t be included in the 100,000,000 you’re citing.

  32. Censored bybvbl

    Oops. That’s Censored. I should be more careful with BS’s computer.

  33. Emma

    @Moon-howler I I find it disturbing that Gov McAuliffe referred to Mayor Parrish as a liar and a fool over the I-66 toll proposal. Disgusting, but hopefully very effective at alienating voters and diminishing the New York influence over this governor.

    1. I didn’t know he did. However, Mr. Parrish, who I like, isn’t telling the truth over I66. See latest post.

      This is one reason I won’t work political campaigns. The staff or the ad guys always make up crap.

  34. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    I think it is horrible and paranoid of the green berets (I hope former) to send that kind of letter to the President. Why would they think that? He has never indicated that he wants to take away guns or disarm the population.

    Really? Perhaps because he, and the rest of the gun-control crowd speak in ways that on the surface seem “reasonable”, especially to those who don’t read past the headlines, or lack a deeper understanding of what he is advocating. Twice in the last few weeks he (and Hillary Clinton) have advocated for policies similar to those adopted by the UK and Australia. Smart on his part, really. After all, with the exception of Canada, if there are two countries closer to us culturally or linguistically to the US, it is the UK and Australia. He said, “They are a lot like us.”

    But he didn’t tell you what those policies are: Confiscation of 95% of all personally-owned firearms. Those that remain in private hands are limited to pump shot-guns, bolt-action rifles with 5-round capacity, and revolvers. These are strictly regulated with “legitimate use” limited to hunting and other sporting purposes. Self-defense is not recognized as a “legitimate use”.

    Pardon me if I don’t put much stock in any Obama claim of “If you like your 2nd Amendment, you can keep your 2nd Amendment”.

  35. Steve Thomas

    @BSinVA #52

    I award you no points, because you failed to make any. The FBI has infiltrated these groups? Gee, that is something that never occurred to me. 14,000 FBI field agents, engaged in everything from investigating bank robberies, interstate drug-trafficking, international terrorism and Hillary Clinton’s email server actually have the manpower and resources to watch 100 million gun-owners.

    When you also consider the DOJ’s repeated alerts stating the “gravest threat” to our country are Veterans, Gun-owners, Conservative Christians and of course, the Tea Party, do you think it’s because the DOJ realizes they are woefully out-manned and out-gunned by people who actually love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I wonder where they got their information?

    But here’s where your real ignorance shows: These people aren’t hiding. These schools aren’t tucked away in some deserted box-canyon, they are out in the open. The owners have websites, blogs, youtube channels. They write books, and magazine articles. They produce daily and weekly radio and TV shows. Were the people at the Bundy Ranch wearing masks? Nope. Masks are for those who wish to engage in rioting and looting…you know, people on your side of the spectrum.

    And just so you know, these people aren’t advocating for the over throw of our elected government. What they are advocating for is resistance against unconstitutional exercises of government power.

    ” It may be your’s and Cargo’s dream, but the majority of citizens aren’t interested in living in a banana republic run by dictator wannabes.”

    Oh darn…you found me out, and to think it was by someone who speaks for, and understands the political will of the “majority of citizens” Cargo…..Cargo….Come-in Cargo….The chair is against the wall. Repeat…the chair is against the wall. Break. John has a long mustache. I say again…John has a long-mustache. Execute E&E plan Alpha. Rally at point Zulu-Niner-Zulu.

    Seriously, you ascribe motivations to me that are false, and I challenge you to prove
    otherwise.

    “I’ve known plenty of LEOs and ex-military men and women and never heard any of them suggest that they’re ready to fire on any state or federal agents who are carrying out the law. ”

    Well that surprises me, considering your obviously vast social network of conservative friends in the 25-45 age group….you know, those folks the DOJ seems so concerned about. Perhaps you need to do a better job of infiltrating these “groups”.

    “If NY residents vote to limit the types or numbers of firearms a person can own, who do you think you are that you should blatantly disobey the law if you were a NY state resident?”

    Your argument fails because to is factually inaccurate: The residents of NY didn’t vote on the SAFE Act. The legislature did, in a hurry-up middle-of-the-night session, with almost no debate, and very little public comment.

    As to who do I think I am? I think I am a free citizen, possessed of affirmed natural rights, free to make my own decisions, and willing face whatever consequences, positive or negative that result from my exercise of individual liberty. If that means civil-disobedience of a law I believe to be unconstitutional, that is a choice I am free to make. Clear enough for you, “Censored”?

    ” It’s funny how you’re always an expert on everything -and always quick to call anyone who disagrees with you names.”

    I think you may be confusing me with…well, YOU, but thanks for acknowledging that I tend to back up my assertions with facts. If I call your statements “inane” or “intellectually dishonest”, I don’t leave this hanging in the air like some ill-timed flatulence, I counter with facts, and use those facts to build a cogent argument. I do try to refrain from the ad hominem attack, as such attacks are a sign of a week argument. You, on the contrary, seem quite fond of the ad hominem attack, which speaks volumes.

    “There are plenty of gun owners who don’t mind further regulation and certainly shouldn’t be included in the 100,000,000 you’re citing.”

    I am sure there are. What percentage, neither you nor I, or even the FBI, really know. I am also sure that you have difficulty understanding the difference between 100,000 and 100,000,000. What’s that quote attributed to Stalin? Something about the relationship between “Quantity and Quality”?

    “Oops. That’s Censored. I should be more careful with BS’s computer.”

    Yes, you should be more careful when making inane gratuitous assertions, using a pseudonym, on someone else’s computer. Wouldn’t want to unintentionally damage the credibility of your well-crafted arguments.

  36. Steve Thomas

    @Emma
    ” Disgusting, but hopefully very effective at alienating voters and diminishing the New York influence over this governor.”

    I guess we’ll see on Tuesday. I don’t think the Governor has done his candidates for State Senate any favors by making this election about guns and tolls…especially about tolls. The gun-issue will motivate gun-owners from across the state to turn out, more than it will motivate pro-gun-control voters to turn out, I think. This will especially impact the VA-7 race, where the Democrat challenger, already damaged by lies regarding his Army service, will also face the high retired veteran population, who also happen to own scary black rifles. But where he really screwed up is springing this toll-plan on Virginians during an election cycle. This impacts Northern Virginia, a region where he needs to hold every seat, and try to pick-off Dick Black. He actually may end up losing a seat here.

    1. I have voted. I voted absentee. I did not vote a straight ticket.

      Where there were no challengers, I wrote in candidates. My school board rep never bothered to answer my email. I considered my concerns important.

      The irony is who I did vote for. Let’s say I have come full circle.

  37. Censored bybvbl

    @Steve Thomas

    LOL!!! Feeling better and bigger now?

  38. Steve Thomas

    Censored bybvbl :
    @Steve Thomas
    LOL!!! Feeling better and bigger now?

    I’m glad you appreciate my sarcasm. I do reserve a large portion for you, although between you and your alter-ego, I might be taxed a bit. However, since you work so hard to earn it, I’ll dig deep into my reserves, and deliver when needed.

  39. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    That is a fairly new law. It generally applies to post-viability. I don’t think it has ever applied to pre-viability pregnancies. I could be wrong but I can’t think of any cases. Viability is a big deal.
    Personhood is still a slippery slope. 14th amendment and all seems to be the anchor. What cases do you know of where a mother has been prosecuted prior to birth? I know of none.
    Finally, it all depends on priority–some people are woman focused, some are fetus focused.

    Moon,

    Believe it or not, I do agree with you on the finer-points here. No question that a Scott/Lacey Peterson type case as a double-murder, but what about the pregnant drug-addict who lacks the capacity to do what is right and healthy for herself, let alone the child she’s carrying. I see where a law of this type could be misused to prosecute a woman who awakens from an over-dose, and loses the child in the process. Was there intent? Was the person able to make a rational decision in a drug-addled state? We hold impaired drivers accountable for their actions, if they kill or injure a person. Do we hold them accountable for two deaths if the victim is pregnant?

    Yes, a slippery slope indeed.

    “Viability is a big deal”

    Agree. I will even concede that those who dig in and defend embryogenesis (11-12 weeks) as their “not another step back” line will most likely be successful at maintaining “on-demand” rights. Will the legal system default to this standard, who can say? Where it will get dicey is in the 23-week and on area. 10% survival may be a big number to some, but not to others.

    1. I don’t have a problem with 23-24 weeks being an aboslute cut off if exceptions are included. Fetal anomaly and life of the mother must be the exceptions. Other than that, I seriously don’t have a problem with abortion not being allowed at that point…for all the obvious reasons. If you have a normal pregnancy and haven’t made up your mind by then, tough.

      I also think these laws that create 20 weeks as a cut off are wrong. Some of them are starting the count way too early. Also, most amnio isn’t done until week 16. It often takes 2 weeks to get the test back.. If the test is positive for anomalies, then the woman has 2 weeks to find someone to perform the procedure. Not many doctors will perform a late 2nd trimester. Furthermore, the procedure is very expensive.

  40. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    Moon,

    So what you are saying is you think many of the regulations are onerous, arbitrary, and capricious, and fail to take reality into consideration?

    1. Yes, Steve. You are correct. I have told you all along I understand why you fail to give an inch. You are tired of something you consider important being whittled away at. That is how it works.

      In the case of abortion, the ultimate goal is to end all abortion for any reason. It’s impossible to do it in one fell swoop so the next method is to erode the right, chunk by chunk. Pecked to death by a duck….

      It really is too bad that common sense (as seen by most people) can’t kick in. Unfortunately, the stage is ruled by activists who have an all or nothing attitude. RR defenders would be more willing to compromise on issues if there was a known stop point. There isn’t.

      I expect you face the same thing.

  41. Ed Myers

    @Steve, the entity who frequently indulges in the personal dig makes us all laugh at this whopper:

    “I do try to refrain from the ad hominem attack, as such attacks are a sign of a week argument.”.

    Steve, at least it is nice to know you have the self awareness to telegraph the weakness of your arguments by including personal attacks in nearly every one.

  42. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    Having just re-read his comments…let me say this. This is not an ad hominem attack.

    This is me…..telling you directly…that you are delusional and dishonest. That is what we get from your comments.

    Have a nice day.

    1. I don’t think that Ed is dishonest. I just think he has a very different world view from me and I think he has an extremely different, not on the same planet from you and Steve.

Comments are closed.