Wednesday, May 28, 2014

California Carnage

Richard Martinez grieves

"Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris's right to live?....When will this insanity stop? When will enough people say 'Stop this madness, we don't have to live like this'? Too many have died. We should say to ourselves, not one more."

Richard Martinez 
Father of shooting victim, Chris

From his cold, dead hands....
A father's anguished words following the latest, totally expected rampage of gun violence - this time in California - didn't really have much effect on the people in a position to do something to stem the carnage. It's going to be business as usual in America. Richard Martinez had some advice (really, it was more of an indictment) for the politicians sending him shallow words of consolation which was splashed this morning all over page one of the New York Daily News: "I don't care about your sympathy. I don't give a shit that you feel sorry for me....Get to work and do something!"

The poor guy ought not to hold his breath. Nothing's going to change - NOTHING. There will be more rivers of blood flowing. There will be the continued massacre of untold numbers of innocents. In time there will be another slaughter of little boys and girls at an as-of-yet unnamed elementary school in this doomed nation. Your elected "representatives" don't give a fuck about your safety or that of your children. Do you think otherwise? What the hell's the matter with you?

Then again, mountains of bodies and oceans of blood suits my purposes just fine, thank you very much. I'll never have writers block, that's for damned sure. A tip of the hat and a raising of the glass to Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association. They've added so much meaning to my life that I'm at a loss to find the words to express my gratitude.

I read the news today, oh boy.... 

Christopher Martinez rests
When I saw a photograph in the papers of the maniacal nitwit responsible for the newest carnage I was a bit perplexed. He said in a video that was shot as he was seated behind the wheel of his car that we wanted kill women - blondes in particular. He was bitter toward them and he wanted to exact his vengeance in blood simply because he had never been on a date. I couldn't understand why this would be so. The truth is he wasn't a bad looking kid - better looking than I was at that age - and I never had any problem getting a date (Honest!). That was before I saw his video - his manifesto, if you will. It was at that moment that I understood all too well....

This kid was an insufferable asshole.

If you want to understand what I'm talking about, look up the video posting. It's all over the internet so you won't have any trouble finding the damned thing. I won't be providing any link to it here; nor will I be posting his photograph. I refuse even to mention the schmuck by name. We'll be forgetting what he did soon enough. Why bother remembering his name? Most people have forgotten Newtown, Connecticut. What's the bloody point? Pun not intended.   

The demented, half-witted piece of shit who goes by the name of "Joe the Plumber" had some comforting thoughts for the loved ones of the kids murdered in California last week:

"As harsh as this sounds - your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights."

Harsh indeed. I won't be mentioning him by his real name either. "Joe the Plumber", like nearly everything connected these days with the agenda of the extreme right wing, is a fraud. Again, as quoted in this morning's Daily News, old Joe stated that Richard Martinez's gut-wrenching sorrow only provided ammunition (I'm just "loaded" with puns this morning) for the "gun-grab extremists". Ain't that a killer? ("Killer" - GET IT???)

I have no optimism for you on this grim, Wednesday morning. And I don't want to hear mentioned the fact that three of the seven victims were killed with knives. Had the murderer taken time to think this through (he obviously wasn't too bright) the body count would have been much higher than it is. The nasty little fact-of-the-matter is that the availability of firearms in America trumps the constitutional rights of every one of us - but don't hold your breath waiting for the congress to to figure that out. Just sit back and roll with the punches. Come to terms with the fact that this is the way it is going to be from now on. Why get all bent out of shape about it? Learn to live with it as I did. I long ago anesthetized myself to living in a country in ruins. You should, too. It will make the going a whole lot easier. 
Can't you feel that hard rain a'falling? Seriously.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
A Covert Affair
by Jennet Conant

Paul and Julia Child
My friends John and Ramona Harragin gave this book to me for Christmas in 2012. I finally got around to reading it this week. It's the interesting - at times gripping - story of Julia McWilliams and her future husband, Paul Child and the work they did for government intelligence during and immediately following World War Two. They were married after the war and she became Julia Child. We remember her today from PBS's "The French Chef".

Many of their friends - good and loyal Americans all - later had their diplomatic careers ruined for "losing" China - as if it was ours to lose. Untold numbers of diplomatic talent that had taken decades to cultivate were scattered like ashes in the wind. The multi-tragedies that resulted from the right wing's purging of the State Department in the nineteen-forties and fifties directly led to the foreign policy fiasco in Vietnam during the sixties and seventies, and which reverberates down to this day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Keep voting Republican.


At 10:03 AM, Anonymous Biff said...

regarding your pool of when the next massacre takes place: No, I don't care to wager when it will be, Tom, but I'll gladly bet that it takes place in a Gun Free Zone.

At 10:39 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

So, seriously, what is the solution? No one wants these massacres to occur. I hear lots of blaming of the NRA, politicians, and lack of gun laws. No admission that our godless, immoral, narcissistic, materialistic society is a prime breeding ground for such monsters - no accountability there. Simply that gun laws are too lax. Doesn't CA have the strictest west of the Mississippi? Didn't he acquire them in CA - very standard handguns? So, if the gun laws are THE main factor, the only solution is to take away all of the guns. Because, if there are a few left, I gaurantee you, it will be the psychos that will obtain them.

I really want to know, Tom (aside from the "ranting" that takes no real thought or substance) what does the right level of gun control look like? Your posts come across like this is a simple issue - and it's not. It is a very complex issue where we are trying to determine what rights we should or should not have in this regard. I don't think you advocate that all firearms be confiscated. So, really, what does the perfect system look like? Forget LaPierre - we don't have to listen to him. Can we not discuss/debate it collegially? I have convictions on abortion that make me want to vomit when I look at our country (and the numbers are far higher than that of gun violence), but I don't continually rant about it - does no good.

Lay out your plan and lets talk about THAT. I think you'd find a lot folks would be willing to discuss...

At 10:40 AM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

What a friggin asinine statement - typical of a friggin gun nut spouting NRA b.s. There are NO gun free zones in this country. Even if your city or state has strict gun laws, some ass can bring them in from the city or state next door. Until the US of A grows some brass and passes tough laws like Australia did, we are going to see these tragedies multiply.

And you know what Bird Brain Biffy? The majority of Americans are getting sick and tired of it. They're angry as all hell and they're making sure their voices are heard - via letters, email, phone calls petitions, and most importantly by voting. Most Americans are smart enough to see through the paranoid fear mongering of the NRA.

At 10:50 AM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

My first comment was addressed to Biff but I think the last paragraph partially answers some of Harley's questions. I'll just urge people to get active. Join a sensible gun control organization like Moms Demand Action. You don't have to be a mom and they have a dad's chapter. They are having some great influence and winning a lot of battles.

Get active at a local and state level because that's where these laws are written and where groups like ALEC and the NRA have wielded so much power. Inundate your politicians with letters, emails and phone calls. Let them know you will not vote for them unless they vow to fight for sensible gun control. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.

Call for higher taxes on ammo - like about 200 percent. This is beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Require not only registration (at a steep fee) liability insurance (expensive) - just like you have to have to drive a car.

And yes, we have the worst mental health system of any industrialized nation but don't let the NRA's jingoistic calls for better care detract you from the main problem: easy access to guns.

At 12:24 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...


Are we prepared to apply the same logic to alcohol? It is responsible for a lot of innocent lives lost, right? Like firearms, it has its legitimate uses. Like firearms, in the wrong hands, it is a killer (moreso, in fact). Not to mention, the social problems directly associated with alcohol abuse. Why do we not cry for stricter alcohol control?

At 2:10 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Typical conservatives blaming everything but the free access to guns. Did anyone else also notice that when Fox news ran a victim's Father's statements, they edited out ALL critisism of the NRA and the polititians that do their bidding?

At 2:22 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

I don't think there is any merit to comparing guns and alcohol. Alcoholism is a self inflicted injury, if these nutbags were using their guns just to kill themselves, I doubt there would be that much of an outcry.

As for drunk driving, there are already legal penalties (which I don't think are nearly severe enough), but I don't see alcohol manufacturers lobbying to protect their customer's 'right' to drive drunk, either.

A background check is a small step, but even when a majority of the country, INCLUDING NRA members wanted that step, it was blocked, not to preserve people's 'rights', but to protect the profits of the gun and ammunition manufacturers, and the political positions of the whores they own.

At 4:18 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

De_Bill -

So, you're saying we don't have laws on the books for illegally possessing and/or using a firearm?

I think there is all the merit in the world in the comparison. It is a nearly perfect analogy. I'm not talking about the self-inflicted damage or even the wider societal damage (both of which are big, by the way). I'm talking about the killing of innocent people (226 killed in 2011 according to MADD - the verity of which I cannot gaurantee) by drivers under the influence of alcohol. How is that not a nearly perfect analogy? I'm open to correction.

To your last point, the killer in this case was subject to background checks. He had legally purchased guns that were very standard handguns, not "assault weapons". I'm not trying to bait anyone here. Really trying to understand what the next step policy-wise is. He had published his intentions - to the point folks were concerned and the police had visited him. The next logical step in the continuum here in this specific case is to deny guns and to confiscate guns. I don't see another solution. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

At 4:43 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

The ONLY way the analogy isn't perfect is in intent. Admittedly, the drunk is not usually killing on purpose. A fine distinction, but one I'll admit...

At 7:09 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

In this case, no gun control laws being suggested would have changed what he did. I know all the ones who want to take away all guns will jump on this but that's not happening. Reasonable gun regs probably aren't either given the political climate.

What gets me here though is the real failure was in our governmental system. The parents contacted the police. They then interviewed the kid and because he was polite, they decided he was no danger. I think they need to look up the word psycho. Psychotics are clever and they are good at playing people. What should have happened and should be available to all such situations is a hold for several days while a mental health professional does the evaluation, while they look through material that might relate like YouTubes or written material. Try yelling bomb in an airport and see how fast they get you into custody and yet here (and with the Boston bombers same thing) cops, without training are set out to decide if someone is dangerous. Effective not!

I don't care if we go for reasonable gun regs but they would not have stopped a kid who had Asperger's from buying .22s or most ordinary guns. Most people with Aspergers are not violent. He bought his guns legally and could with longer waiting periods or more checks. Some of that does happen in California.

So why not go for what might really make a difference-- mental health! Too simple? Not satisfying to those who would like to see all guns taken away? It seems it's why we get nothing on either issue but especially not where it comes to someone like this shooter, who was a psychotic who was clever, grandiose, ignorant, arrogant, good at faking it, and a sociopath. If we could do more about mental illness, we'd have more chance of making a change but that isn't wanted either as takes away rights. Well 6 young people had their rights taken away in Santa Barbara and have left behind a lot of heart broken families including the parents of the shooter.

At 8:11 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Yes Rain, they would have especially in this case. The new law would have provided law enforcement to see his mental healthrecords BEFORE he was allowed to buy a gun. Having done that they would have been allowed to interview family and friends as to his mental stability.

At 8:38 PM, Anonymous Jay said...

For all the talk of less gun control and more mental health, I'd like to remind folks that we have some "Patriots" in the Nevada desert just hankering for a "Civil War" over Obamacare. Mammograms and prostate exams are grounds for killing our fellow Americans. This isn't considered "crazy," just good ol' fashion American "patriotism."

Whether you agree with the Obama Administration or not, you can't possibly believe all the lunatic theories out there. You really can't.

Our kids have grown up with this lunacy and with an economy that has probably caused parents to focus more on finances than child rearing.

All sides are pointing the finger and hypocrisy reigns. We expected *what* from all of this? Caring, compassionate, grounded young adults who are considerate of one another? We did?

I would personally like the gun groups to stand in front of the 2nd Amendment rather than cower behind it from the latest faux-gun-grab theory. We accept crime in L.A., D.C., and Detroit. It's these legally owning supposedly responsible gun owners and their killing sprees that are the problem. They are what get the debate going again.

There have been far too many stories of careless gun owners. I've kept track--send me your email and I'll give you the list! Far too many for any rational adult who leads a gun organization not to conclude that not everyone ought to own a gun. Adult-being the key word.

I'm not looking for gun groups to jump on the anti-gun bandwagon, but how about a statement like, "WTF?" "He did what?" We had an uncle point his loaded gun at his nephew's head and it went off killing the kid. I don't care what the fuck the Founding Father's wrote or what bizarre "government conspiracy" is at hand as to why we need guns. If we aren't bright enough to not realize pointing a gun at a kid's head isn't wise; perhaps we ought to be invaded or rounded up by the government because clearly we need an adult.

This isn't "freedom" we're living; it's stupidity.

For the pro-gun crowd, these guys are their own worst enemies. You can contrive up whatever Obama-plot for a gun grab you like; but it's these guys fueling the flames of gun control. Statements like that of Joe the Plumber or the maggot S.C. GOP official give the impression that mass shootings are opportunities to further gun ownership.

Gun groups can change that with but a little shared outrage.


At 9:01 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

We do not know when he bought the guns. It could have easily been before his parents became alarmed a month or so ahead of the killings. Mild Asperger's which is what I read he had been diagnosed as having and for which he had been treated for since 8 would not block him from buying a gun.

We know also that the police visited him and dismissed him as a risk. The second thing is a far sure way to have stopped this. He said it himself in one of his writings. If they held him on the parents' concern to evaluate his situation, this would not have happened. The young men living with him had become disturbed also and weren't going to continue the lease. Obviously his situation was deteriorating rapidly but he was a psychotic; which enabled him to play games with people.

I am not against gun regs but three of these people were killed with a knife. I guarantee you that, joke though Degan might do about knives, machetes and swords are deadly weapons in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. We had a strong young man killed several years ago in one of our small towns, still haven't caught who did it, and he was killed with a machete. Bombs are effective also. I just think you need to get the dangerously mentally ill out of circulation. As it stands, we cannot do it.

Fine with me-- work toward better gun regulations but understand it would not have stopped this young man. Better mental health regulations might have... and then again maybe not. But we are not doing what we could.

At 9:02 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

And Jay, what gun regulations do you want and realistically think you could get.

At 11:13 PM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 12:34 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would greatly reduce gun violence, after all guns were taken away.

Waiting for the first brave elected Democrat to start the repeal.

Abortions kill many many more humans that guns do, the difference is those killings are done in private, so it doesn't count in the mind of the liberal pro abortion democrat. Out of sight, out of mind. The human death in the womb (unless it's partial birth abortion in which the brains are sucked out of the baby human while it part way out it's so called mothers birth canal) is not equal to the death by a gun it seems

When the Anti 2nd Amendment crowd becomes brave enough about the killing of ALL fellow humans to take a honest look at the violence of abortion murders, I'll take their rage over gun killings seriously. Until then I'll give you Mozart's advice, "stop whining".

At 7:40 AM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Yellowstone, your post is written to the wrong person, Martinez's son was a victim, not the shooter.

At 9:01 AM, Blogger Yellowstone said...


Please retract my comments above.

Thank you James Hansen for calling me on it!

At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Susie Q said...

Oh, little Chuckie is back on his abortion bandwagon. Congratulations guy, I thought you had moved on to other subjects.

Meanwhile, why should we wait for some brave Democrats to begin repeal of the second ammednment? Aren't there an brave Republicans who are willing to step up to the plate and show that they are "leaders"?

At 11:03 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Kind of like Tom being on the killing spree "bandwagon"? Why is Tom allowed the privilege of a bandwagon, and not Chuck Morre?

It is comical to watch the group-think that takes place out here. Hey, I wanna be cool like the other kids and pick on "Chuckie". Grow up.

At 12:12 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Yes, stop picking on Chuckie!

Only when big government is allowed to monitor every woman's womb and limit her reproductive rights, then and only then, should we take rage over gun killings seriously.

If that's not reasonable, then what is?

At 1:23 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

I didn't say stop picking on him. What I meant to convey is - stop hypocritically picking on him for having a "pet" issue when the author of the blog does the same thing. Note there was no critique of the stance or of its applicability to the issue at hand. Merely a "nya nya" response. And, to call him "oh, little Chuckie" in the process is indicative of someone who likely isn't capable of intelligent debate in the first place - thus needs to resort to playground antics.

Thus my useful exhortation - grow up.

At 1:40 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

"Harley A. said...

De_Bill -

So, you're saying we don't have laws on the books for illegally possessing and/or using a firearm?"

No, I'm saying we don't have laws that take even a basic first step towards determining whether a person is responsible or sane enough to LEGALLY purchase and own a firearm, and that the very people who should be advocating the implementation of such laws spend millions of dollars blocking them.

The NRA collects millions of dollars in dues from its members who it claims to represent, but when a majority of its members backed background checks and other reasonable gun laws, it didn't even hesitate in lobbying to block any kind of reform, because the NRA doesn't actually represent its members, it represents gun and ammunition manufacturers.

More time is spent checking a person's background before they're issued a driver's license than is spent before selling them an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

At 2:10 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...


I hate to nitpick (and my wife hates it when I do), but do you not have to have a DL as part of the background check process, and thus have run that gamut already... I did.

I'm not necessarily arguing that the background checks are the right level of scrutiny...maybe they aren't. But, my alcohol analogy illustrates that we (society) issue a potentially deadly substance (with a documented record of deadly misuse) to people with NO background check other than proof-of-age. Why? Because society values the ability to use it legitimately without draconian barriers - even thought we KNOW it causes deaths of innocent people every year. And if any mention of more severe controls was brought up in THAT arena, a man would be tarred-and-feathered...

At 2:15 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Imagine the howls of outrage if we suggest that buying weapons should require at least as much of a registration process as the GOP voter registration laws...

At 2:23 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Susie Q
We have been told that when polled most Americans id themselves as Democrats. The Democrat party controls the White House and Senate.
Democrats have been the leading voice in wanting more gun control. Those who call themselves Democrats must agree with that position. Right?

The GOP's membership has not been know for it's demand for more and stronger gun control laws.
The real question then is, when will the leaders of the DNC take the steps their membership wants them to and reduce gun violence? The most logical, effective step being the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Why wont they do what their membership wants?

Where have I said I want to monitor the wombs of women? Your claim sounds like something said to dodge the real debate by casting your opponent as illogical and radical.
Personally I find the legality of ending the life of a innocent human while still in his or hers mothers womb, as distressing as the administrating the death penalty without the benefit of a trial by a jury of it's peers. My position on the ending of gun violence is it can be accomplished only by the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But even then it would not be eliminated 100% anymore than the overturn of the right to abort would end 100% abortions.

"More time is spent checking a person's background before they're issued a driver's license than is spent before selling them an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine."
First of all, how do you know that to be true? Are you speaking from personal experience? I think however, you have stumbled on the solution for requiring voter photo id to vote being discriminatory towards certain sectors of the American population. Just use the run the sme background check used to sell a gun to vote.

In the meantime, with the elections in NOV coming up, isn't this the time for the Democrats to make the repeal of the 2nd a campaign issue?

At 2:40 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Where have I said I want to monitor the wombs of women?

You didn't need to say it.

How else could laws banning abortion be enforced? Someone in government authority would need to know if a pregnant woman became not pregnant, right?

Just use the run the same background check used to sell a gun to vote.

And require registration for both?

At 3:27 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

How do I know that to be true?

Because I possess a driver's license, and have renewed it multiple times, and have even moved to a new state and had to get a new license, and each time, the DMV checked to make sure I was legally allowed to have a license.

That's a particularly stupid assumption, that I'm conflating that with restrictive voter registration laws, but I understand Reductio ad absurdum is your default preference.

As far as repealing the 2nd Amendment, once again another stupid assumption. I'm a gun owner, and always have been, but in the same way I don't object to the state refusing to license someone who has proven they can't be trusted to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, I wouldn't object to at least trying to do the same thing at the point of sale for a firearm.

At 4:23 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Elliot Rodgers was licensed to drive, Bill. And purchased his gun in one of the most stringent states when it comes to gun laws.

Answer the REAL question. What FURTHER would you do beyond CA law that would prevent THIS incident? Folks are wanting to assert generalities without answering to the particular of the very situation that is the established leaping-off point of the discussion...

Though I agree that the voter registration thing is tangential to this argument, I do find it fascinating that stringent gun purchase laws are not questioned as being potentially racially biased.

At 5:50 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

THIS specific incident? Who the hell knows? but from what I've read this pos was no stranger to the mental health system, and could having a comprehensive system for background checks have increased the odds that that he, or someone like him, didn't purchase a gun?

Without a doubt. Just because such laws may or may not change the outcome of one specific incident is a weak argument for not having them.

I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm saying that if a person has a long term history of emotional problems, and their own family has called law enforcement to question them about their mental health, it would be nice to have some sort of system where that AT THE VERY LEAST raises a red flag when they attempt to purchase a firearm, don't you think?
I'm not even saying necessarily anyone with that history should be blocked from owning a gun, but it wouldn't hurt if there was at least a little review, right?

As for conflating background checks for firearm purchases with oppressive voter registration laws, I have nothing against voter ID as long as those laws are truly egalitarian.

Maybe by making Social Security cards photo ID's, but certainly not by passing laws that say concealed carry permits are legal voter ID, but state issued student photo ID's aren't, because guess which group statistically favors which party?

At 6:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hip hip hooray for the NRA protecting our God given rights!!!!!!!!!!

At 7:01 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

hip hip hooray for the NRA protecting our God given rights!!!!!!!!!!

Where's my God-give right to a .50 caliber machine gun? How about my God-give right to an Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher?

Hellooo! NRA? Anybody?

At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Where's my God-give right to a .50 caliber machine gun? How about my God-give right to an Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher?"

What has that got to do with this massacre by a Democratic Hollywood producer's son?

You sound like you have been breaking the law by drinking more that 32 oz of sugar filled soda pop!

Dave, You sound like a useful idiot! period!

At 11:28 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

"I don't object to the state refusing to license someone who has proven they can't be trusted to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, I wouldn't object to at least trying to do the same thing at the point of sale for a firearm."

I don't know where you live but when I purchase a gun, the dealer checks my record on line using my drivers license and does so through a federal website to get the ok for my purchase. When I secured my CCW permit, my state sent my name and personal info to the FBI along with all the other holders of a CCW permit in my state. Due to the length of the line at the license store, the time to get a drivers license vary from visit to visit. Quite a subjective comparison you have made.

Has anyone compared the millions of dollars the NRA raises to support their position on the 2nd Amendment to the millions of dollars Planned Parenthood raises (including tax dollars) and spends to support their views of abortion? Of course not, abortion is a right, guns are the problem.

As for "Until the US of A grows some brass and passes tough laws like Australia did, we are going to see these tragedies multiply." wouldn't now be the time for the Democrats to grow a set and start the effort to replete the 2ND? Why would that be any more crazy or just "another stupid assumption" to do so if the current gun laws do not stop the violence?.

If you are not willing to really do something other than whine, than what good are you doing? It just makes your feel good to be unset but not enough to do something about it. Get your Democratic elected official to start the Repeal the 2ND today! It will guarantee a Democrat landslide in the NOV elections, I'm sure.

At 12:19 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

In my state and a lot of states, all you need is a valid drivers license, and throwing in the CCW blather is irrelevant to the discussion, since it was about purchasing a weapon.

And even the driver's license isn't required at a gun show, where anyone lacking a driver's license can purchase any weapon they want.

At 10:13 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

De_Bill -

Ok, at least you're honest in saying "who the hell knows"? I agree, who knows? But, instead of engage in sensible debate on a tough issue, the author and many uncritical thinkers sensationalize it and make conservatives out to be reckless gun freaks when that's not the case, save a few.

Again, for anyone who wants to critically analyze and properly contextualize the situation...

Per CDC stats for 2010:

* Gun homicides 11,078
* Alcohol-related automobile fatalities 10,228

Yet, I never hear outrage from Tom. Is it because he values his right to drink more than he values those 10,228 lives?

At 10:38 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

I cant speak to how it operates in CA, but in my state, you have a records check run on you when you purchase a firearm at a gun show.

Maybe others who are as brave (I'm not poking fun at you with that comment) as you are to admit to owning firearms can share their experience when buying a gun at a gun show in their state.

As for the gun being registered, IMHO, when my data is run through the federal govt background check that is required to buy the gun, I believe that information is used to ID the gun to me and is therefore, registered to me. The same thing happens if I purchase another firearm at the same gun show on the same day from a different vendor. Every time I have bought a firearm, I have had a background check run.

As for the checking the mental stability of a gun buyer, should we apply the same process to car owners, or buyers of alcohol?

At 12:39 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Tell me, when was the last time someone bought a car with the express intent of running people over? When was the last time someone bought alcohol with the specific purpose of driving drunk and killing someone?

You can't equate the consumption of alcohol and car ownership with the ease of firearm purchases in this country.

When you can provide evidence that those things are happening in significant numbers, then there might be a reason to include them in a discussion about what could be done to control the ready access to firearms for people who lack the responsibility, mental health, or a clean criminal record to own them.

At 1:47 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

It's hard to say how many buy a gun with the intent of killing someone. My husband and I own quite a few guns; I have a concealed weapon permit and don't have any intention of shooting anyone who hasn't broken into my house or isn't a coyote/cougar/bear trying to kill my sheep or calves. These days if you buy a gun, you do get registered unless you bought it through a newspaper or Craigs List ad. To me selling that way would be highly risky as then you are still left as the last registered owner.

California had a 10 day waiting period between order and walking out with the gun. The kid who did this evidently had his guns for awhile as a roommate who moved out earlier said he was pretty sure he had them then as he'd hear the clicking. He said he thought the guy was good at hiding his mental illness which is typical of psychotics.

A lot of the ones who own guns, like me, don't like the NRA, don't support it, do like the idea of reasonable regulations on buying a gun. To get a concealed weapon permit, you really are evaluated and i had no problem with that as it made sense. I also rarely carry my gun as it's a lot easier to say oops with a pepper spray than a gun that might even be grabbed by the one you were afraid of and used on you-- which is why the safest place to use a gun for protection is in your own home when whoever is there is threatening and was not invited. Responsible gun owners have gun safes and they keep their guns locked up when small ones are around.

Of course, accidents do happen anyway. They happen walking through a room and tripping. It's part of life. Responsible people try to minimize the risks. I do not know though, short of better mental health care, how we prevent something like Santa Barbara-- and amazingly a lot of times the left is as much against doing more about detaining someone on a mental health alert as the right. Fear of it going too far has prevented a lot of reasonable rules like limiting the size of magazines and what kind of weapon someone can buy.

What I keep wanting to hear though from those who say we must do something. What is the something they want to do? I'd like to hear specifics. That's what I have been wanting to hear from Bloomberg and his approach which is to go after even Dems if they don't go as far as he wants on gun control. What is as far as he wants?

At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repealing the second amendment, or making guns illegal will not make guns disappear and will only create another underground illegal business that will create more killings.
Can we learn from the failed war on drugs that has created such a criminal element in our country, or from alcohol prohibition of nearly 100 years ago that did the same?
I believe we have a better chance passing stricter laws and counting on the American people to be law abiding citizens, to help cut down all kinds of gun violence, especially negligent deaths from guns the NRA crowd likes to falsely call accidents.

At 2:26 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Bill -

I never brought car ownership into the picture. Only the alcohol use.

Intent vs. criminal negligence is a fine distinction to hang your hat on. I showed you the hard statistics that demonstrate the problems are very close in the numbers affected.

Also, the secondary and tertiary societal effects of alcohol are orders of magnitude more far-reaching than gun ownership.

And, I'm pretty sure a bottle of Jack Daniels has rarely been used to protect ones family.

So, if I had to pick one as being the worse than the other, it would be easy. It would be alcohol hands down.

And, I'm not even advocating further regulating alcohol. Again, I'm helping contextualize the argument, which I realize is lost on most because they cannot engage their minds beyond what the idiot box feeds them.

If you cannot see the logic in my argument, I can't help you further. But, appreciate the collegial debate.

At 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...
A site that covers gun crimes and issues only. Check it out.

At 6:12 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

I was addressing your post and the one that followed. I didn't think that needed to be explained.

My mistake.

At 7:37 PM, Anonymous Chuckie said...

What this man did was a drop in the bucket.

Take some time to ponder about all the aborted babies killed by the Atheist Democrats.

Could one of them been a doctor who found a cure for cancer or come up with a solar power energy solution that works and would have eliminated the need for fossil fuels? What a beautiful utopian world we could all share with those breakthroughs.

Dave Alinsky Dubya, let me know your thoughts.

At 10:45 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

If 40 million abortions were never performed over the last 40 years or so, the population would be increased by 120 to 150 million people. A good portion of them would be a drag on society, unwanted and raised in institutions.

Many would have genetic and personality problems and physical deformities as well.

Republicans want to cut every social program known to man so they would not support all these orphans at all.

It is easy to support a fetus, it costs nothing. It costs plenty when they become a real live baby.

At 11:53 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

James Hansen, have you ever heard of eugenics?

At 1:07 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 1:09 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I have firearms, but feel a need to have more power than the federal government; you know, like corporations, the Kochs, and the NRA.

Where's my God-given right to a .50 caliber machine gun? How about my God-given right to a Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher?

Hellooo! NRA? Anybody?

What kind of idiot can't see the message in satire here?

A "useless idiot" of course.

Which weapons does God want us to have anyway? We know the Second Amendment allows muzzle loaders for militias. Everything after that has been decided by judicial activism.

But again, what weapons does God want us to have?

Why does the poster who claims god-given rights to weapons run like a coward from this question?

Oh, yeah, a useless idiot would behave just like that.

At 9:08 AM, Anonymous Chuckie said...

"But again, what weapons does God want us to have?"

What weapons do the Liberal Fascists want us to have?

NONE, so that after The People have suffered a long train of abuses and usurpations with a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, they would not be able to throw off such Government.

THEN only the Brown Shirts and the criminals in the Democrat ruled cities, where the majority of the crimes occur, would own guns.

Would the National Brown Shirts who surrounded the Bundy farm have backed down if The People showed up with squirt guns instead of real guns?

At 10:28 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

"Which weapons does God want us to have anyway? We know the Second Amendment allows muzzle loaders for militias. Everything after that has been decided by judicial activism."

Do you believe God supports abortion?
Is the "right" to murder a human while in it's mothers womb in the Constitution or is the result of "judicial activism"?

At 10:47 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Umm....did the "Brown Shirts" back down because "The People" showed up with guns, or because they deliberately (and bravely) "strategized" to put women and children in the line of fire so if the shooting started, they'd be the first ones shot? What bunch of heroes!

(@ the 1:40 mark)

And of course, let's not forget that "The People" stayed around after that bit of bravery to put up roadblocks in the area, detaining local residents and demanding they identify themselves. Yep, that's the America we all want to live in!

By the way, how exactly would Faux Noise have reported the story if it was a group of brown or black American citizens who were setting up sniper positions and pointing weapons at law enforcement agents? I think we all know the answer to that one.

At 10:54 AM, Anonymous Chuckie (no relation to Chuck Morre) said...

"what weapons does God want us to have?"

Dave, I can't answer that question. You need to first define weapon. Does it include knives, baseball bats, and axes?

Can you answer the following question:

How many innocent babies does God want us to have aborted?

James Hansen:
"Many would have genetic and personality problems and physical deformities as well."

James, would you be in favor of euthanizing these people?

At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Chuckie said...

"detaining local residents"


At 11:38 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...


Ahh, what a cogent, well thought out, fact based rebuttal. Good Job!

" Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev, has reported that local residents of the area have complained that armed militia men have set up checkpoints on some of the roads, demanding proof of residency before allowing cars to pass. "

At 12:11 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"But again, what weapons does God want us to have?"

Still no answer.

Liberal Fascists…National Brown Shirts

Burt we do have the crazy talk of the president of the Tim McVeigh fan club.

At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Chuckie said...


The original topic was that the people have a right to bear arms to protect themselves from a Government that has become tyrannical.

The question I had was, would the Federal agents have backed down at Bundy's ranch if the local militias had no guns.

I say the Federal agents backed down because the militias in the area showed up with guns. Do you also believe this?

"Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev, has reported that local residents of the area have complained that armed militia men have set up checkpoints on some of the roads, demanding proof of residency before allowing cars to pass."

Bill, so the roadblocks were set up to immobolize the local residents and NOT the federal agents? What a coincidence that the above quote is from a Democrat.

Above, Bill you added they were detained. Can you site me any more "facts". Were they handcuffed? Were they placed behind barbed wire? How long was the dentention?

Nice little twisting of the facts. You and Dave Alinsky Dubya must be related.

At 1:39 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Really? Being stopped on a public road by armed civilians demanding you identify yourself within driving distance of your own home doesn't qualify as being detained on your planet?

And no, the original topic was about people who misuse their right to bear arms to murder their fellow citizens. But thank you for the unintentional comedy of you being the one to try to tell someone they should stay on topic. Priceless.

BTW, a Democrat was quoted because it's a Democrat who represents that region.

Although I admit I took the quote from Forbes, which is anything but a liberal source, the same way the Youtube clip I posted showing that halfwit talking about putting women and children in front of the guns was from Faux Noise, figuring you would be hard pressed to impugn the source.

And no, I believe the Federal agents backed down because they were the adults in the situation who decided not to risk the lives of women and children to enforce the law against a clown who has lost every single time he went to court, and managed to get some demented rightwingnuts to show up.

Also, despite the NRA fueled masturbation fantasy that the 2nd Amendment was added so people could oppose the government just because an election didn't turn out the way they wanted, if you were to be honest for just a minute (as though that's going to happen), your opinion would be completely different if either Bundy or the gun toting dimwits were brown or black.

At 1:41 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The original topic was that the people have a right to bear arms to protect themselves from a Government that has become tyrannical.

You really never read the original posts do you?

The real Bundy question is why does he get to freely use government land for his private profit, when others lawfully pay grazing fees?

Right wing double standards again?

His neighbors and local businesses have had enough.

Ten miles from these desert encampments, the telephone is ringing more than usual at the police department in Mesquite, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
Travelers from around the country are calling, wondering if it's safe to pass on Interstate 15, where Bundy and his supporters, some armed with military-style weapons, faced down federal officials in an April 12 standoff over his cattle grazing on federal land.
Police Chief Troy Tanner tells callers it's safe. But local authorities and Bundy's neighbors are growing weary of the attention and the unresolved dispute. Since the standoff, Bundy went from being proclaimed a patriot by some for his resistance to a racist for comments he made about blacks being better off under slavery.
"Most of our neighbors have about the same opinions we have. They don't like it," said John Booth, a resident of nearby Bunkerville who drove this week with his wife, Peggie, past the State Route 170 encampments. "But they're not really going to say anything about it."

It is wise to not say anything, there’s no such thing as “free speech” at the point of a rifle.

News NOW obtained a police report which showed that the Holiday Inn Express had received at least nine threatening telephone calls after the hotel allowed BLM rangers to stay there. Hotel workers were told to kick out the BLM or they “would not be standing in the morning.” One hotel worker, who refused to go on camera, claimed that he was told by an anonymous militia member that he would be “dragged out in the parking lot and shot”.

Chuckie’s Tim MCveigh fan club “heroes” are ignorant, racist thugs. His kind of folks.

At 2:02 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Anonymous Chuckie (no relation to Chuck Morre)

Chuckie, until Dave man's up and answers these questions dont play his game of 20 questions. Just a hint, don't hold your breath waiting for his answers.

Do you believe God supports abortion?

Is the "right" to murder a human while in it's mothers womb in the Constitution or is it the result of "judicial activism"?

How many innocent babies does God want us to have aborted?

De_Bill has already started the blame FOX News strategy which I's sure will others will followed with the race card, the Koch Brothers, and GWB.

The bottom line is as Harley stated it
"So, seriously, what is the solution? No one wants these massacres to occur. I hear lots of blaming of the NRA, politicians, and lack of gun laws. No admission that our godless, immoral, narcissistic, materialistic society is a prime breeding ground for such monsters - no accountability there. Simply that gun laws are too lax."

The ridicule of my solution to gun violence (repeal of the 2nd) makes me question the sincerity of those who want stronger gun control laws and wonder if their posturing is for political purposes only, but not results? As long as you have whipping boys like the NRA, GOP, Koch's, the RICH, Corporations, etc, that you can blame the ills of society on, you are not forced to example your personal belief's and the policy's you support's role in developing and causing of those ills.

At 2:20 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

So when's the last time "Double Chuckie" has EVER "manned up" to answer a question?



Still waiting.


Far Right double standards, of course.

Must be off to another Tim McVeigh fan club meeting.

If I answer this one, will that mean we'll bet an answer to my question? HA!

Can you answer the following question:

How many innocent babies does God want us to have aborted?

Who knows? How many miscarriages has God allowed? Same answer. Who knows?

And of those miscarriages, how many had names, social security numbers and ever drew a breath of air?

If they were people, identify them.

My next question is why do you worship a "liberal" God who allows abortions by miscarriage? I thought He was a Republican.

How do you think "God the Baby Killer" should be punished?

At 10:35 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

So you are saying abortion is a miscarriage?
Or is that too loaded of a question for you?

At 1:18 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The answer to your question is no.

Now answer me a yes or no question.

Did you see the facts that DID NOT come from a Democrat?

I recall someone demanding, "Can you site me any more "facts".

So I did. You still haven't given us any answers, or recognized the facts. Cult got your tongue?

RRBC hate, contempt, and double standards explains that sociopathic behavior.

At 9:34 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 9:36 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...


You mean your "fact" that "I want to monitor the wombs of women"? Or your "fact" that I am a exhibiting "sociopathic behavior"?

In rereading all of your posts in this thread, I've yet to find any facts that you have addressed to me that would require from me a response.

However....."Do you believe God supports abortion?
Is the "right" to murder a human while in it's mothers womb in the Constitution or is the result of "judicial activism"?" is still out there waiting for you reply.

If, as you have now stated, abortion is not a miscarriage, then why did you say this,
"My next question is why do you worship a "liberal" God who allows abortions by miscarriage? "
You really seem confused Dave, and maybe just a little angry.

At 11:58 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I recall someone demanding, "Can you site me any more "facts".

(That would be you, Chuckie.)

So I did. You still haven't given us any answers, or recognized the facts. Cult got your tongue?

The debate is over, Bundy and his racist thugs are just a bunch of junior Tim MvVeighs. You and your alter-Chuckie have been given the facts.

Now for another fact. Abortion is not murder. It may be to you, but it is not to the law. End of debate.

Just because YOU call abortion murder doesn't make it so. Just because you call Obamacare communism doesn't make it so. This unilateral definition is more proof of the Right's war on language. The radical Right has learned it cannot win arguments on mutually agreed upon definitions of words, that which all debate requires.

Judging by all your questions you are the one confused.

Label them as you may, my point was both abortion and miscarriage result in the same thing.

God doesn't call miscarriage murder, and the law doesn't call abortion murder.

These are the facts, sport. Sorry if you can't wrap your narrow mind around them.

At 12:40 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

To be clear, I am personally opposed to abortion as birth control, and I own firearms.

And I want my freedom to express this.

I don't want to take away a woman's freedom of choice, and I don't want to confiscate firearms from sane responsible firearm owners. (The Bundy militia lacks both sanity and responsibility. Training weapons on other human beings, other than in self-defense, is evil.)

Let's put his into perspective for Double Chuckie:

"As harsh as this sounds - your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights."

You relate to Sammy the non-plumber, so try this one.

Your aborted non-person zygotes don't trump a living breathing woman's reproductive rights.

It seems living breathing human beings are of less value than guns and zygotes to the Tim McVeigh fan club.

At 1:48 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

The pregnant open question that posited in the 2nd reply of the chain - to which the blog author hasn't even engaged for some reason - is this: "In this case, what more do we need over and above CA law, which was followed to a T best we can tell?"

So far, there's been some kind of attempt at something about mental health. There's also been a couple of ideas that are ALREADY CONTAINED IN CA LAW AND WERE FOLLOWED. Beyond that, nothing...

And, a mountain of illogic and sophistry that I don't have time nor inclination to engage - and it wouldn't do any good anyway.

At 1:51 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Oh no - sorry. Just looked. There was 200% taxes on ammo, too.

So, keep the good ideas flowing...

At 2:20 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...


I am not chuckie, that may be what YOU call me, but that is not me. You chose to call me that instead of what I call my self, which is Chuck. I can see how that would confuse you but it is not of my doing, but you own.

"both abortion and miscarriage result in the same thing" which is the death of a human being? You are opposed to abortion as a form of birth control, laudable, but didn't you accuse ME of wanting to monitor the wombs of women. How would your propose to enforce you position?

"God doesn't call miscarriage murder"

Not so sure about that DD, I seem to recall something being written about the punishment for a man causing a miscarriage by striking a women in the Bible.

See Exodus 21:22, 23, 24

Now back to Tom's topic, gun control. So far nothing has been offered on this subject that if in place would have prevented the killings.
The idea I've offered has been labeled as crazy. Ok so maybe it is, but what are the other new preventative laws and regulations for us to discuss? Leslie calls for "sensible gun control", and offered "higher taxes on ammo" and "require not only registration (at a steep fee) liability insurance (expensive) - just like you have to have to drive a car" or in other words, what is being done to tobacco, tax it so high as to make it impossible to buy. Get with those of your elected officials and demand they do this in exchange for your support come election time. (I really think Jay supports my repeal the 2nd idea.)

Rain Trueax may have summed it up best when she said "In this case, no gun control laws being suggested would have changed what he did."
She also makes a great point about knives used as weapons. I guess we should include cars, baseball bats, wrenches, lead pipes, candle stick, and rope.

At 2:28 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

You are asking for a solution that, for all practical purposes in the US, doesn't exist. Even Chuckie knows only drastic measures would address the problem.

One thing is certain, the more weapons in circulation, the more people will die from them. That is how the numbers add up, no matter what the NRA babbles about "good guys with guns".

Almost everybody buying a gun considers himself the "good guy", whether they want "Second Amendment remedies" to overturn elected officials, threaten government employees, or to take vengeance, retribution, or whatever twisted sense of "justice" the "good guy" has in mind.

As Tom said, "Come to terms with the fact that this is the way it is going to be from now on".

We are doomed to endure continuing human sacrifice to the Holy Second Amendment. Not-Joe the Non-Plumber has prioritized his "Second Amendment remedies" over human lives.

Ii is not the majority opinion, but he speaks for enough Americans and powerful lobbies, so that will be how it is.

It is a selfish, cruel, paranoid madness, by the way. But that's what America is all about these days.

At 2:37 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

You are quoting the “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” Old Testament Law.

That was about retribution for a criminal assault. OK? You can’t go around kicking pregnant women, or any women. It is still illegal.

At 7:05 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

The Old Testament punishment for causing a woman to miscarry was a fine (paid to the husband, of course) unless she herself was harmed-- if you go by the King James version before it became desirable to rephrase it to suit the modern christianist political demands. Back then to know she was pregnant would require her being a lot farther along than a test would show today.

What I want to know on those who want some regulations to end all gun violence-- what do you have in mind? Confiscated all guns from the law-abiding? That is who would turn theirs in. Certainly not the tea party or militia types.

Then do you propose to come around and protect people who no longer have guns to protect themselves. So those like me, who live 20 miles from any police, where the police no longer come out on calls at night (budget cuts). Then wold you also find a way to protect my calves and sheep from the coyotes and cougars who stay away only based on being shot or shot at. Or do you make exceptions and let a few people keep their guns? Do that and some bad guy might get them.

Most of the ones who want gun regulations go so far out with it that they will end up getting nothing. If someone wants regulations that enable dangerously mentally ill to be denied a gun, it costs money to administer. And would have done nothing for Sandy Hook since the mother, using lousy judgment, bought the guns.

As for waiting periods, in the last case, the guy had bought them earlier and CA has a 10 day waiting period. The Tucson shooter had one store take a look at him and not allow the purchase but then the next store let him buy it.

The problem is unless you are willing to work hard for progressive candidates in November, you won't get any of it. Just sit around blaming someone who owns a gun for something they had nothing to do with.

At 10:07 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Two tactics that might bring a reduction in mass shootings is to reduce the media coverage of the shooter. No pictures, extensive biographies, or even his name to cut down on copy cat behavior. I myself do not care to know what some asshole loser likes for breakfast or what type of under wear he prefers.

Another thing they could do is stop giving out anti-depressants and psychotropics to any body that is not bursting with joy.

These drugs seem linked to many of the mass murdering assholes. It is ironic that a drug that is supposed to make you happier has the side effects causing symptoms of bi-polar,suicidal thoughts and extreme violence.

Of course nothing will change in the slightest and we will reading about these shootings for the rest of our lives.

At 9:16 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...


We are an immensely over-drugged society, beginning with 8 year old boys...

At 12:34 PM, Blogger daveawayfromhome said...

How's this for an idea that everyone can get behind: liability insurance on gun ownership. You want a gun? Then you must have insurance to pay for the potential damage. We do this with cars, why can't we do it with guns?

At 12:35 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

James Hansen,

Could an argument be made that the legalization of pot in Colorado is an example of the State is now encouraging the use of drugs?

I believe that change is an inside job. A change in the basic nature of mankind, IE: to kill, to steal to rape, etc, is not going to come about through new laws. (This does not mean the laws should be abolished for with out good there would be nothing but evil) A change in man's nature comes from the inside. Sadly as you correctly stated nothing will change in the slightest, and I would add, if it is left up to mankind them selves. If it were not so, there would be no breaking of the law, because mankind would have changed because OF the law. The law does nothing more than to show mankind how far they are from not being law breakers.

So what can change mankind to obey the laws already in place?

At 2:29 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

The scary part for me about our culture is the sense of entitlement and by that I don't mean programs for the poor but just this idea everybody is owed happiness, the prettiest girl, riches, power and when they don't get it, they want revenge on someone. Reading about the Santa Barbara shooter and a friend said the kid didn't work to get girls. He expected them to come to him and then was mad when they didn't. Everything is skewed and not just the ones who act out.

When I write about these shooters, I never use their names and I think that's a good idea. But a lot of the killings may be this sense of rage which is flowing over so many places. It's just crazy-- and by that I don't mean real insanity often but just unbalanced and totally senseless.

Parents are often desperate for how to deal with a rebellious kid, and we saw it again in Texas where a mother and father were killed by one of their sons. Out here in my part of Oregon, it's happened several times-- sometimes guns, sometimes knives. It's hard for me to understand given how my generation generally thought-- hate your parents = move out. Where did it get changed into murder them? Not saying nobody killed their parents back then but it was sure a lot less common. Is it the media, the US's constant wars, video games, books, or something else that has desensitized some to the point their first solution is one of violence?

At 9:42 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Chuck, the "State" definitely wants us to use lots of drugs, look at all the drug ads on TV. Big Pharma and its deep pocketed lobbyist see to that.

They do not wants us to use pot as you can see in the incarceration rate, half the people in jail are there for simple pot possession.

If you would like to see less lawbreakers in this country all you have to do is get rid of stupid laws.
Arresting prostitutes is a total waste of time, smoking pot and growing it should unconditionally legal. All drugs should be legal, if you get caught stealing to get them, than you go to jail.

If all drugs were legal they would be one tenth the price and we could close half the prisons in the country.
Is that too Liberal for you?

At 1:02 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

"Look at all the drug ads on TV."

What does the govt have to do with ads run on t.v.?

"If you would like to see less lawbreakers in this country all you have to do is get rid of stupid laws."

Can we use that logic for current gun laws and regulations?

Would I be correct in saying you believe the solution to the problem of laws being broken is to do away with the laws? Tell me what that would look like from your view point.

At 1:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberals were so excited when news broke of a husband-and-wife team of psychopaths killing two police officers and a heroic armed civilian who confronted them in Las Vegas... and threw a "Don't Tread On Me" Gadsden flag over one of their victims. At last! At long, long last! The elusive Tea Party killer had finally arrived!

They've tried to pin virtually every mass killing to the Tea Party or conservatives, of course, ever since the orgy of slander they unleashed within minutes of the Tucson shootings. The most infamous subsequent botched smear job was when Brian Ross of ABC News breathlessly reported his discovery of a Tea Party guy who had the same name as the Colorado movie theater shooter. The Boston Marathon bombings were initially portrayed as the work of anti-tax activists. On and on it went, as the Left tried to will the Elusive Tea Party Killer into existence, while studiously ignoring the ideology of such individuals as L.A. madman Chris Dorner, or the Family Research Council shooter.

But this time they finally had an open-and-shut case. The killers used a Gadsden flag! They were at the Bundy ranch! SCORE!

Wondering why the Left suddenly shut the hell up about the Las Vegas shooters? Here's why, courtesy of CBS News:

While living in Lafayette [Indiana], Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.

Nick Wertz, one of the organizers of the Lafayette march, said it attracted many people upset over a lot of issues.

“Everyone there just seem kind of like normal people. At least they were going to stick up with what they thought was right,” he said.

Whoops! Down the Memory Hole they go, as the hunt for the Elusive Tea Party Killer resumes. I don't suppose liberals are too happy with the detail that a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit, Joseph Wilcox, was killed trying to stop these monsters, either. They had hundreds of rounds of ammo; every moment they were delayed gave the police time to surround them, leading to their suicide, before they could hurt more innocent people.

The salient fact about Jerad and Amanda Miller is that they were drug-addled psychopaths with anarchist delusions whose malfunctioning mental hardware led them to declare a "revolution" and attack the police. Back when a large number of violent types were accumulating at Occupy rallies, it was common for apologists to insist the sleazy types were just "rogue elements" whose presence did not reflect in any way upon the organizers of the movement. Funny how that argument is never remembered when the Left thinks it can link some psycho killer to its ideological adversaries.

In truth, given its loose organization and the fact that just about anyone could stroll into one of its brief and orderly rallies, the story should be the remarkable absence of bad elements from the Tea Party movement. I guess hard-core anarchists don't like what they hear when they show up.

At 1:26 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The salient fact about Jerad and Amanda Miller is they held to the same insane beliefs in "Second Amendment remedies" as racists like Bundy and his fellow "Second Amendment remedies" Militia nuts.

Hate, paranoia, racism, and fear unite these demented sorts. And a love for the Gadsden Flag apparently.

Some, like the Tennessee Unitarian Church killer, took up the mission of gunning down liberals as part of their insane cult of hate and ignorance.

So how many people did OWS shoot?

At 2:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell us about the love coming from the church of Rev J. Wright.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home