published Thursday, February 7th, 2013

Bennett Archive: Gun Safety

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

257
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
alprova said...

Hoo Boy....here we go again!!

February 7, 2013 at 12:10 a.m.
limric said...

Hmm, what do the scriptures say about revolver storage? As Pee Wee said yesterday, "Inquiring minds want know."

From the book of con, verse 13: 'And verily Yahweh say unto Thee': 'All gods guns gots locks'

Pffft!! ]:-0

February 7, 2013 at 6:21 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

The 2nd amendment defines a free country as a country whose citizens acting together outgun its government. The 2nd amendment is the law of the land. It can be changed by two thirds of Congress plus three quarters of the states.

Armed citizens prevent somewhere between 800,000 and 3 million attempted crimes a year. Do disarmers want all those crimes to happen? 4000 rapes in particular? "More guns less crime." Police are the 2nd responder; the target facing a criminal is the 1st responder.

Guns are risky. So are cars. Ban cars? No, both tools have their uses.

They that take the sword will perish by the sword, said Jesus. Gun controllers like to quote this (though otherwise favoring "separation of church and state," i.e. separation of Christians from political influence), and indeed the Prince of peace, the God Who "is love," does not aim for rough stuff. But He can handle it. When will men "beat their swords into plowshares"? When they learn the law of triune Jehovah: that's the context of swords-into-plowshares in Isaiah 2. Want gun safety? Become a Christian and evangelize all your neighbors.

February 7, 2013 at 6:34 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Fear of inanimate objects....with therapy and medication, I hear there is help for that.

February 7, 2013 at 6:57 a.m.
dude_abides said...

AndrewLohr said... "They that take the sword will perish by the sword, said Jesus."

Andrew is channeling Ron Paul!

AndrewLohr said... "Become a Christian and evangelize all your neighbors."

Why does that, somehow, sound dirty?

February 7, 2013 at 7:13 a.m.
conservative said...

I get it that the loontoonist is against gun ownership, he is entitled to his opinion.

What he doesn't get is that after the crime is committed against himself or family he will call the police who will be wearing guns while they console him.

February 7, 2013 at 7:18 a.m.
Reardon said...

The White Council thought THE SAME THING about the One Ring, too.

February 7, 2013 at 8:18 a.m.
tifosi said...

EXCELLENT CLAY!!! If gun owners would follow this basic principle of responsible gun ownership, many children would still be alive. Ask any soldier what happens if you leave a weapon unsecured. You are punished.

BUT, since gun owners will fight this IDEA tooth-n-nail, I have an even better idea to protect our children and society from reckless gun owners...

REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!

February 7, 2013 at 9:23 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

What? I thought "SAFEST" was in a holster, on my person, with a round in the chamber.

Silly Bennett, he should stick to stuff he knows something about.

February 7, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

tiflosi,

You could save more children by banning swimming pools.

February 7, 2013 at 9:31 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

AS USUAL, CLAY GOT IT BACKWARDS.

February 7, 2013 at 10:04 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Sounds like tifosi should be against swimming pools, cars, knives, hammers, clubs, and, oh yes, doctors by their thinking. They all kill more people than guns.

This lady has it right... http://video.foxnews.com/v/2138468100001/

February 7, 2013 at 10:04 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Remember folks, these are just cartoons.

February 7, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.
conservative said...

Just cartoons? No ideology?

Then why doesn't the cartoon show the homeowner pointing an unlock gun at a masked burglar?

February 7, 2013 at 11:18 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

Just cartoons?

No ideology?

Sure there is. It is, "state-sanctioned amoral godless liberal Rousseau-inspired cultural Marxism. "Bureaucratically implemented by a pornography-addled media invested in the system's success". ~Caddy.

Amazingly then, Clay Bennet ( "Like Clay and his presidential "idol" ) must be a closet negro (and aborter) because - [ "it seems that many black voters are cultural Marxists." And, "Black Americans are also major aborters."] ~Caddy.

You guys are so cute. The more you write, the more you remind me of Kim Jong Ill, Mullah Omar, Fred Phelps, Rouhollah Khomeini, Pat Robertson or an American Taliban. The latter of which suites you just fine!

"Better a pink bottom than a black soul." Right Con man?

February 7, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Is it just an anomoly that Victoria BC has almost no violence, gun or otherwise? Is it possible that Victorians are safer without guns than well armed Chattanoogans?

February 7, 2013 at 12:11 p.m.
tifosi said...

I think it is more of an anomoly that America is the most violent nation in the civilized world. Not so civil anymore.

February 7, 2013 at 12:32 p.m.
caddy said...

The moment I see the President stop being protected by GUNS and his daughters STOP being protected by those same agents using guns, I'll be encouraged that he really means business.

Of course, Criminals don't give up their guns so I won't be giving up mine regardless of what law comes down the pike.

MickeyRat, concerning your email above. Blacks are being systematically ELIMINATED / Exterminated via abortion. I won't even lead you to the statistics and websites that present that information. You can find it easily enough.

Of course the ideology is that we live in a culture of DEATH here in American. We ( i.e., you and those like you ) see CHOICE as the Sine qua non. Odd that all it takes to call a Baby in our Bellys as Human is to WANT them. If we do not want them, if we find ourselves in a predicament, if we blabber on about the .1 % that come from rape, we go on a rant about HAVING to be able to choose to Abort ( i.e., KILL ) the very life we carry in our bellys.

So spare the lecture about sounding like the Taliban and religious. Would that you saw life as valuable. Like the President, however, you clamor on about taking away the rights of law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong in seeking to protect themselves and their families from predators--and may I add--a predatory government--which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when the devised the 2nd Amendment--and attempt to take away a basic FREEDOM--and think good can come from it.

Tell me then: Would it be good and wise to take away the protection of our House Representatives, our Congress, our Senate, our President and his children ? If not why not.

Be explicit here.

February 7, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

This is what Clay would have us do. Worth seeing.

February 7, 2013 at 1:38 p.m.
caddy said...

Clay is a fool IF he actually thinks that. Like Chris Rock, who stammered on about supporting the president about gun rights, he has no clue what he is talking about. Bruce Willis:

"I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone. If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?" asked Willis.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/bruce-willis-opposes-obama-gun-control/2013/02/06/id/489198#ixzz2KExZ6uA9

Go down this road, and you open up a can of worms. 2nd Amendment falls. 1st will follow.

http://www.gocomics.com/chuckasay/2013/01/16

February 7, 2013 at 1:44 p.m.
caddy said...

Keep blindly following this President IF you want your liberties destroyed one at a time. Keep listing to Clay's praise of the treasonous President who blabbers on and on about how much he cares about children ( i.e., due to what happened at Sandy Hook. )

"The liberals have been in power in the countries of European origin for approximately one hundred years. And even now, when they have completely consolidated their power and squashed virtually all opposition, they refuse to accept responsibility when something goes terribly wrong in their world. They refuse to accept responsibility, because by liberal logic nothing can go wrong in utopia, and if something does go wrong, it is because utopia has not yet arrived and some bad people are impeding progress toward perfect peace and harmony. The liberals’ reaction to the recent grade school massacre is a case in point. We know, from their ardent support of infanticide, that liberals have no sympathy for the children that were murdered in Connecticut. The slaughter of innocents does not appall liberals in the slightest. So why the wringing of hands and the phony tears? The liberals must feign concern when public school children are murdered because they want to maintain their power base. The public must believe that schools are safe because that is where children learn to be good liberals. If parents stop sending their children to public schools then the liberals will lose their primary indoctrination centers. Hence the feigned concern must be maintained, and the liberals need to deflect the focus away from the glaring flaws in utopia and focus on the bad men who are standing in the way of heaven on earth. In the case of the school killings, it is the opponents of gun control who are responsible for the murder of school children, the liberals tell us, because they refuse to allow the liberals to have a gun-free society. It is of absolutely no use to tell the liberals that."

February 7, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
caddy said...

If there is no God, then there is no absolute law protecting any man or anything from any use demanded by any power. As Dostoyevsky saw, if there is no God, then everything is permitted."

Statist slack-jaws, like Obango, get their thinking from Cultural Marxist teachers, not sound Precepts--as evidenced from our Framers and founders and the things they relied on for Truth, Goodness, Beauty. That only comes from above. IT doesn't come from within. There is nothing "good in us," save for the fact that we were created by a Good God.

February 7, 2013 at 1:58 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Armed citizens prevent somewhere between 800,000 and 3 million attempted crimes a year. Do disarmers want all those crimes to happen? 4000 rapes in particular?" - Andrew Lohr

Hold on there, preacher-man. I would like for you to provide some documented evidence to support those statistics. Methinks you're blowing insanely exaggerated numbers out your sanctimonious pie hole. Even 800,000 is a huge exaggeration.

But you won't be able to provide any documented evidence and here's the reason why: There isn't any! Every pro-gun website on the internet loves to toot its horn about the latest SURVEY (that's the extent of your documented evidence) showing how many lives have been saved or how many crimes prevented with the use of a gun as a deterrent. But the information obtained is always exaggerated and subjective. One woman in one survey claimed that a gun had saved her life or prevented her from coming to harm 52 times in the past year! Now, if she was a member of the Crips or the Bloods, maybe so. But how many people in those surveys do you think exaggerated or outright lied, just to justify their need to have a gun at the ready?

As for your lame attempt to equate guns to cars, which is something you gun nuts have milked for all its worth, the fact is, we do a better job of regulating our cars than we do our guns. Nobody is calling for banning cars and nobody on the left is calling for banning guns. But most rational people see the need for sensible, uniform regulation, without the loopholes and inconsistencies that have allowed the felons, the miscreants, and the crazies to slip through the cracks.

Nobody is calling for taking away your gun(s). Better enforced gun regulation is spelled r-e-g-u-l-a-t-i-o-n, not c-o-n-f-i-s-c-a-t-i-o-n. The arguments you gun lovers make always veer off into the irrational and delusional. At least get on the same page with what the discussion is really about.

February 7, 2013 at 2:05 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Hey nooga, the votes weren't there for ObamaCare either, but we have it. You can stay ignorant, just don't stay gullible.

http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/

February 7, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
chatt_man said...

So nucanuck, what's your plan to get America as safe as VBC, now that the guns have been here for hundreds of years? Work with the present, don't get lost in what could have been.

BTW, my cousin lives there, beautiful place, and she loves it...

February 7, 2013 at 2:41 p.m.
caddy said...

I'd Like Rickaroo to provide un-biased evidence and sources that would prove what Andrew Lohr presented in way of numbers is bogus. I'd actually think the numbers were much higher.

It's been beat to death and spoken of ad nausea. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation. It has the worse crime rate. Draw your inference.

February 7, 2013 at 2:45 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

" 'I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone. If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?' asked Willis." - caddy

Baloney. The Constitution has been changed 17 times since its inception. One amendment made alcohol illegal in 1917 and another made it legal again in 1933. It was changed to abolish slavery in 1865, to allow black people to vote in 1869, women to vote in 1919, and to extend the vote everyone 18 and above in 1971. The Second Amendment did not even exist in the original document, but was added two years later (1789).

If the Second Amendment is viewed by some as an "unalienable" right to unrestricted gun ownership and thus an impediment to regulation, it can be changed nonetheless. And in light of the ways our society has changed over a 226-year period, it SHOULD be changed - not to ban guns outright, which would never be possible anyway, but to at least take into consideration the differences between yesterday and today. In 1787 we were a nation of 13 colony/states, with only single-shot muskets, and no well regulated militia existed. Today we are a nation of 50 states and over 300 million people where countless weapons of mass destruction exist that our forefathers never could have imagined, and we have a powerful standing military and National Guard at the ready. Toto, we're not in Kansas any more. It's time to consider some serious revision or rewording of the second amendment.

February 7, 2013 at 2:45 p.m.
conservative said...

If the loontoonist believes guns should be at the bottom of the ocean then it is obvious to me that he is opposed to gun ownership.

February 7, 2013 at 2:50 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"It's been beat to death and spoken of ad nausea. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation. It has the worse crime rate. Draw your inference." - caddy

And you gun lovers speak ad nauseum about Chicago and how "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The fact is, we are a nation awash in guns and gun deaths and the only solution you gun nuts can come up with is more guns in the hands of more people. No other country has more guns per capita than the U.S. No country has more gun deaths than the U.S. For all the statistics you refer to about guns making us safer, it's funny how those other countries where the people don't have the same access to guns that we do are not any more vulnerable to death or harm and in fact are statistically and actually better off because guns are not so accessible. Draw your inference.

Oh, but wait....there's always that threat of our government swooping down upon us with black helicopters, isn't there? And your AR15s and Glocks and hundred-round drums are gonna save the day, right? Yeah....right.

February 7, 2013 at 3:10 p.m.
caddy said...

Gun lovers. Nah, that's reserved for the President and our government. Ask them WHY they love their guns Nimrod.

Me on the other hand, I have a few guns and even got a carry permit. I'm yet to pack the first time since I got that permit middle of last year.

I loathe libtards...

February 7, 2013 at 3:20 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Just a cartoon. Only simple-minded people would let cartoons sway their way of thinking. Tooney's a child, let him color in class and just say, 'aww, ain't that nice,' and get over it.

February 7, 2013 at 3:35 p.m.
patriot1 said...

The 2nd ammendment as well as all the first ten ammendments is directed at Congress and the federal government, not the individual. Try reading the Bill of Rights in that context and note the number of "no" and "shall not"...the 2nd ammendment is not meant to give the individual the "right", it states the "right" is recognized and not to be infringed upon.

February 7, 2013 at 3:36 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Nobody's looking to shoot anybody, little nub noogie, just to be able to protect ourselves in an emergency. But, by what you're writing, it looks like you're hunting one.

I see a name change coming...

February 7, 2013 at 4:23 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

I welcome your loathing, caddy. I do not seek the respect, approval, or friendship of ass-backward buffoons.

February 7, 2013 at 4:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"just to be able to protect ourselves in an emergency"

How has that ability been infringed on?

February 7, 2013 at 4:28 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Caddy,

Your beliefs are the antithesis of liberty, freedom, honesty and especially free will. Read the quotes below:

["I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty; we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies."

"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."

"There is going to be war, [and Christians may be called to] take up the sword to overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them."]

The above are quotes from Randall Terry (someone just like you)! Look in the mirror, it could just as well be you, 'conservative' or any other non-thinking drone.


"Religious Right in this country are treasonous, cowards, and fear losing the ability to make this nation in their own image and will persecute anyone that does not believe the way they do." ~T1 Truth

Remember, "When Jesus Christ came upon the Earth, you killed Him. The son of your own God. And only after He was dead did you worship Him and start killing those who would not."—Tecumseh

The Christian Right, the Afghanistan Taliban. They are one in the same.

Tell me the Caddy, "Look around your home and everything in it. Name me one thing in your home that was invented from bible teachings". ~T1 Truth

Be explicit here.

February 7, 2013 at 4:31 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Re. tu_quoque's... referenced study co-authored by Ashley Randall.

Consequently, the results of the study certainly points to the likelihood that tu_quoque watches a lot of porn.

LMFaO !!

February 7, 2013 at 4:33 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Nobody's looking to shoot anybody, little nub noogie, just to be able to protect ourselves in an emergency." - chatt_man

And nobody's looking to take that away from you, chatt_man. So stop making your stupid straw arguments to that effect. Listen to what we're actually saying and we could eliminate at least half the arguing.

February 7, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Easy, it hasn't been infringed upon, much, yet, but only because of the resistance they get. Our WonderBoy executive orders could take care of that (if he thought he could).

Refer to my post from 2:37 today. And don't tell me it's from 1995 and she's changed her mind as of late.

Rickaroo, you can refer to that post too...

You both know if they can find a way they will.

February 7, 2013 at 5:04 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Tu_ I wonder if that list could be useful when the Death Panels start in ObamaCare. Oh boy, here it comes...

February 7, 2013 at 5:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"it hasn't been infringed upon, much, yet, but only because of the resistance they get."

It hasn't been infringed on at all and it never will be. They get resistance from people that have no clue what they are talking about. Imaginary Hitler isn't coming to take your guns and no one is advocating that confiscation, especially not the President.

"Our WonderBoy executive orders could take care of that (if he thought he could)."

No, they couldn't. The Constitution won't allow it.

"You both know if they can find a way they will."

No, they won't. But keep acting like the government is trying to subvert the 2nd Amendment and take away your liberties. I'll keep laughing at you.

February 7, 2013 at 5:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Chatt_man,

"I wonder if that list could be useful when the Death Panels start in ObamaCare. Oh boy, here it comes..."

I wonder when WingNuts like yourself will stop espousing proven lies and falsehoods? Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you say things like that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/why-talk-of-non-existent-obamacare-death-panels-wont-die/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

February 7, 2013 at 5:19 p.m.
jesse said...

http://www.thecutline.com/forums/images/smilies/th_2_dog-11.gif

Here ya go easy!!!I seen this and thought of you right off the bat!!!lol

February 7, 2013 at 5:23 p.m.
chatt_man said...

There you are showing your ass again Easy.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/06/paul-krugman-calls-for-death-panels-to-cut-health-care-costs/

hilarious excerpt: "This opens Krugman up to charges of hypocrisy, since he called the “death panel” accusation a “smear” in a March 22, 2010 column and an example of the “dishonesty” of Obama-care opponents in a June 29, 2012 column. Does this mean Krugman accepts Sarah Palin’s argument that Obama-care’s cost containment strategy will require health-care rationing?"

February 7, 2013 at 5:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"There you are showing your ass again Easy."

There you are showing your ass again, Chatt_man.

Just because someone says the word "death panel" doesn't mean there actually are death panels. His quote is actually calling for death panels. That means we don't actually have them.

You should try to actually read the links you post instead of copy and pasting the first Google article you find when you search for "death panels". There are no death panels in Obamacare. My three links prove that fact. Your link actually does as well if you could do simple deduction.

It's not my fault you're stupid.

February 7, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Hey trash mouth - Me, none, like most people, nooga. But, it does look like I might have a nephew to change that in the near future. He has a mom that doesn't deserve the name Mom.

February 7, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
chatt_man said...

I don't, but some do live in a trailer, nooga. Do you think you're better than them because you don't? Is that the liberal elitist way?

February 7, 2013 at 5:51 p.m.
tifosi said...

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

February 7, 2013 at 5:57 p.m.
JHL said...

Clay: reducing the TFP circulation one drawing at a time. If the TFP used the same extreme logic as "if we can save one life" they would immediately can him. To save one or several subscribers of course. This logic looks flawed either way you use it. Just more extremist using todays headlines and the media to further their extreme agenda. Radicalism is flawed. Until all extremist, left and right or whatever are removed from government nothing useful or productive will be accomplished, only more of the same BS. See where extremism has gotten the Middle East?

February 7, 2013 at 7:26 p.m.
chatt_man said...

JHL, your statement about the extremist on both sides needing to be removed from government before anything productive can be accomplished is absolutely correct. The majority of them advocate for themselves and their party instead of the citizen.

But, then look what some of us write here, myself included.

February 7, 2013 at 7:52 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Yes, Mr. Bennett, Criminals do know that after they shoot to death an innocent, they can SAFELY toss their weapon into the river. Those of us who would protect an innocent from that same criminal would display that legal weapon of protection. Please, Clay, look a little closer.

Ken ORR

February 7, 2013 at 8:53 p.m.
GameOn said...

The old timers in Athens, Tn. may have a different perspective on the 2nd amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

February 7, 2013 at 8:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Ken Orr,

You're completely oblivious. Seriously, you might want to take a closer look at the cartoon. Your misguided statement has absolutely nothing to do with the cartoon.

February 7, 2013 at 9 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

nucanuck said... "Is it just an anomoly that Victoria BC has almost no violence, gun or otherwise? Is it possible that Victorians are safer without guns than well armed Chattanoogans?"

Violence is a cultural phenomena, independent of gun ownership. When societies develop a violence problem, they usually respond by limiting firearm ownership, with no positive impact, usually a negative impact on the violence. Unless you deal with the source of the violence and avoid chasing strawmen, you will never solve the problem.

Read this if you dare see the truth...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

February 7, 2013 at 9:35 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Today two members of the Westboro Baptist Church have left that group. Two granddaughters of crazy Fred Phelps had finally had enough of the genocidal God, homophobic hate, and fanatical Christian crap.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/06/4052727/two-members-leave-westboro-church.html

The good news for Orr and Conservative is their applications to join are at the top of the pile. Way to go boys! Get your homo signs made and your horse and buggies hitched and start that way. Fred can't wait to meet you. He's heard so much about you already.

February 7, 2013 at 10:11 p.m.
rick1 said...

Obama gives the Muslim Brotherhood free F-16's, and wants to take away semi automatic weapons from us, and limit the number of bullets we can buy. Wake up, America

February 7, 2013 at 10:43 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Yes, regarding the previous comment: Does everyone remember this: "Building on pro-gay policies put in place by SECRETARY of STATE HILLARY CLINTON, President Obama today ORDERED overseas federal agencies to provide asylum to to homosexuals from around the globe (world)?" Dec. 6, 2011

How could any nation, anywhere in creation, expect to be blessed by Jesus Christ when ABOMINATION is invited into that nation by the heads of state of that nation?

That's why his first-term job totals average at just 25,000 jobs per month.

Ken ORR

February 8, 2013 at 8:18 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

You're a moron.

February 8, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

This present administration** has possibly ordered into this nation every conceivable mutating strain of HIV/AIDS. This in addition to an unknown host of GUT PARASITES (this being true since the homosexual community usually prefers INTESTINAL SEX). And to consider the type of sexual perverts, like some label The N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man-Boy Love Association), who comes with the homosexual asylum seekers to the U.S. So, once again, 'how could anyone ever expect our nation to be blessed with these kinds of Executive decisions?

Ken ORR

February 8, 2013 at 8:35 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Mr. Clay Bennett,

My earlier comment is in need of further explanation. Some have misinterpreted my intended meaning.

My comment stated:

Yes, Mr. Bennett, Criminals do know that after they shoot to death an innocent, they can SAFELY toss their weapon into the river. Those of us who would protect an innocent from that same criminal would display that legal weapon of protection. Please, Clay, look a little closer.

What I should have added is that:

Those of us who would protect an innocent from that same criminal would openly display 'OUR' legal weapon of protection. You see, those of us who PROTECT innocence have nothing to hide, nor do we need to be categorized with criminals...by Democrats! Please, Clay, look a little closer.***

Ken ORR

February 8, 2013 at 8:42 a.m.
Maximus said...

If Clay and his suck buddy Obama really want to save lives and make everyone feel better why not do something that will have massive impact on day one....ban cigarettes. All of Obama's feel good talk about passing new gun laws and creating a massive new unionized government bureaucracy to implement national background checks and data base, in his words...."Even if it means saving one life"....is silly Obama theatrical bombast at best. Cigarette smoking is a proven killer. Banning the behavior would save massive amounts of healthcare dollars and make America healthy. Putting an end to cigarettes would also have more positive financial and social impact than taxing carbon to achieve victory over the climate change scam. Finally, and this has been said numerous times in this debate.....we kill more wonderful, living children, with unlimited potential, via abortion every year in America (1.6 Million) than will ever die in a year via gun violence. Clay, had you been a German Jew back in the early to mid 1940's you would have been one of the first to give up your gun and one of the first on the railcar to "summer camp" and a nice hot shower. "Don't worry kids, follow the nice men in the sharp uniforms. The new very intellectual government authorities know what is best for us. Look at those lightening bolts on the lapels! And they are being so nice to us!" WEAK BRO, REALLY WEAK!

February 8, 2013 at 8:49 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy123, When You 'Name Call', You are showing your Youth. Please consider representing your age-group in a more positive light.

Your Friend, Ken ORR

February 8, 2013 at 8:50 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

When you make statements like the ones above, you are showing your ignorance and psychosis. I won't ask you to make any considerations because you are far too deluded and mentally compromised to take any advice from sane human beings. You are truly an embarrassment to the human species.

February 8, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.
caddy said...

MickeyRat said:

"Your beliefs are the antithesis of liberty, freedom, honesty and especially free will. Read the quotes below:"

Why Mickeyrat, because I don't believe true freedom is held in the belief that "Doing what we all want to do...when we want to do it and with whom" is freedom ?

Sorry: True freedom is to be made free from Sin to become the children of God. True freedom has everything to do with returning the center of our existence back to God. Life does not revolve around me. As for your notion of "free will" that's probably a WHOLE other debate, but I'll speak to that very simply on two important points you failed to give consideration: 1 ) you did not control the day of your birth, to whom you were born and where 2 ) Neither will you control the day of your death and how.

People such as yourself tout "freedom" but what you are really touting is Anarchy or a particular TYPE of statist control. Sorry, but that's not freedom. People are so enamored by equality that they'd rather be equal in slavery than unequal in Freedom.

That type of freedom was tried during the French Revolution. Seems your not much of a student of history on how that revolution was different than our own glorious revolution...and why.

Lastly, i'm not a "tolerance romantic" as you seem to be:

Tolerance romantics ( “tolerestisas”) want tolerance and say they despise the hate they seem to think they see in those they deem “intolerant.” But if I do not agree with everything they say, they call it intolerance and hate. Explain to me … again just how that works.

We persist in trying to derive moral knowledge from the reluctance to admit to any moral knowledge, like trying to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps....Tolerance is a virtue indeed; but if it is the only virtue, it can hardly be anything more than good conscience in our continuing lack of convictions, says J.Budziszewski. I think he was SPOT on.

As a lover without courage is defective in love, a tolerator without ethical judgment is defective in tolerance. As kindness is addled in the solely kind man, tolerance is addled in the solely tolerant man. True tolerance differs as much from neutrality as a shape differs from a shadow.

To be sure, we have labored so hard under the delusion that the essence of tolerance is ethical neutrality that, in attacking ethical neutrality, I run the risk of coming across as a foe of tolerance itself--worse yet, of having my arguments taken out of context and exploited by fanatics ( such as you MickeyRat )who ( as always ) are arming at every Clay Bennett Toon.

The most important function of true tolerance is not the disregard of ends, but the protection of ends against pretended means.

February 8, 2013 at 9:03 a.m.
caddy said...

MickeyRat: Tell me the Caddy, "Look around your home and everything in it. Name me one thing in your home that was invented from bible teachings".

Interesting: So in the Beginning, Liberals created themselves out of nothing and...it would seem: for no purpose. Tell me MickeyRat, of what did you form the substance and from whence did it come--in the beginning ?

February 8, 2013 at 9:12 a.m.
Maximus said...

Ya'll, if you have not seen the CNN Ted Nugent vs. Piers Morgan gun control interview now on the net it is a classic. Uncle Ted rips Morgan to shreads. The Motor City Mad Man is one of my all time favorites and if you have not seen him in concert your life is not complete. Have a "Cat Scratch Fever" kind of day! I am headed to the range to make some big ole holes.

February 8, 2013 at 9:13 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"True freedom is to be made free from Sin to become the children of God. True freedom has everything to do with returning the center of our existence back to God."

Bullsh!t. You can live under the rule of your totalitarian dictator god all you want but leave me out of it.

"1 ) you did not control the day of your birth, to whom you were born and where 2 ) Neither will you control the day of your death and how."

And you failed to mention the 60-80 years in between or the fact that you can control the day and the means of your death. We all have the ability to make choices after we are born whether you like it or not.

"Life does not revolve around me."

If you are a Christian then it most certainly does. Your religion is the most narcissistic of all. You claim to speak for your deity based on what you read out of a two thousand year old book. All your prayers and all of your offerings to your deity are self-centered. If a bus crashed and everyone but you died, you would say that your god spared you or that your god was "looking out for you". What about the other people that died? Why you? Your life and your religion revolves around the narcissistic idea that you know your deity personally, you can talk to it, and it watches out for you personally. There is nothing more narcissistic or self-centered than believing such things.

"But if I do not agree with everything they say, they call it intolerance and hate. Explain to me … again just how that works."

You're under the misguided impression that speaking against intolerance is, in itself, intolerant. It isn't. You don't get be intolerant without consequence and you can't claim that others are being intolerant of your intolerance. No one has to tolerate your hatred of homosexuals. Just like no one had to tolerate segregation, slavery, etc. You don't get to hide behind your holy book or your beliefs anymore. You will be criticized and ridiculed for holding hateful, immoral, bigoted beliefs.

February 8, 2013 at 9:18 a.m.
conservative said...

Ken Orr, I want to thank you for your many posting of facts about the behavior of sexual perverts and the diseases they carry and spread. The specifics you give from CDC although disgusting are very powerful and effective. Witness the vitriolic comments your comments engender. Since facts can't be refuted Liberals have to attack the person. I need to follow your lead on that and also expose the consequences of the vile, disgusting, sinful, abominable behavior of these lost souls.

My discussion has centered on the teachings of Scripture and the certain judgment awaiting those who practice the abomination of homosexuality. One person whom I have had discussions with actualy claims to be a Christian and yet believes practicing homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God contrary to the plain teachings of Scripture!

February 8, 2013 at 9:20 a.m.
conservative said...

caddy,

It is folly to argue with a fool.

February 8, 2013 at 9:23 a.m.
caddy said...

Easy

You have your dictator. How's that working out for you ?

The liberals have been in power in the countries of European origin for approximately one hundred years. And even now, when they have completely consolidated their power and squashed virtually all opposition, they refuse to accept responsibility when something goes terribly wrong in their world. They refuse to accept responsibility, because by liberal logic nothing can go wrong in utopia, and if something does go wrong, it is because utopia has not yet arrived and some bad people are impeding progress toward perfect peace and harmony. The liberals’ reaction to the recent grade school massacre is a case in point. We know, from their ardent support of infanticide, that liberals have no sympathy for the children that were murdered in Connecticut. The slaughter of innocents does not appall liberals in the slightest. So why the wringing of hands and the phony tears? The liberals must feign concern when public school children are murdered because they want to maintain their power base. The public must believe that schools are safe because that is where children learn to be good liberals. If parents stop sending their children to public schools then the liberals will lose their primary indoctrination centers. Hence the feigned concern must be maintained, and the liberals need to deflect the focus away from the glaring flaws in utopia and focus on the bad men who are standing in the way of heaven on earth. In the case of the school killings, it is the opponents of gun control who are responsible for the murder of school children, the liberals tell us, because they refuse to allow the liberals to have a gun-free society. It is of absolutely no use to tell the liberals that.

February 8, 2013 at 9:24 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

I'm not MickeyRat but I'll chime in.

"So in the Beginning, Liberals created themselves out of nothing and...it would seem: for no purpose."

What do liberals have to do with this?

"of what did you form the substance and from whence did it come--in the beginning ?"

Anything before the Big Bang occurred is basically unknown considering time and space didn't exist. However, after the Big Bang, space expanded,matter and anti-matter, stars were born and destroyed, planets formed, life began on these planets, evolution occurred, and look at us now. That was the third grade version for you. Basically, we are all made of stardust.

But to your point on "purpose", we make our own purpose in life. It has nothing to do with a "higher calling" or serving a deity.

February 8, 2013 at 9:27 a.m.
caddy said...

Conservative,

There are two sides to answering the fool conservative, so bear with me:

Proverbs 26:4-5 (ESV) Pr 26:4 (ESV) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Of course, "The fool" would merely see these two verses as just another proof that Scripture contradicts itself.

But, I agree with you that little can be done with the FOOL as far as "instructing him" and there are a lot of fools floating around on Clay's site.

February 8, 2013 at 9:31 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"You have your dictator. How's that working out for you ?"

No, I don't. How is that delusion working out for you?

"The liberals have been in power in the countries of European origin for approximately one hundred years. And even now, when they have completely consolidated their power and squashed virtually all opposition, they refuse to accept responsibility when something goes terribly wrong in their world."

Could you be more specific? Your cryptic WingNut rhetoric doesn't mean anything to me.

"They refuse to accept responsibility, because by liberal logic nothing can go wrong in utopia, and if something does go wrong, it is because utopia has not yet arrived and some bad people are impeding progress toward perfect peace and harmony."

I truly have no clue what you're talking about.

"The liberals’ reaction to the recent grade school massacre is a case in point. We know, from their ardent support of infanticide, that liberals have no sympathy for the children that were murdered in Connecticut."

Strawman argument. There is a big difference between 6 year old kids and a fetus in the 1st trimester.

"The slaughter of innocents does not appall liberals in the slightest."

Strawman argument.

I won't dignify the rest of your deluded, psychotic rant with a response. I try to avoid debating people that only use fallacious arguments.

February 8, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
caddy said...
The Choice presented by Paul is between telling the truth in

an age when people do not want to hear it, or telling them myths that will make them happy and you popular. The world needs to hear the raw, undiluted truth of God's Word. What are some of the popular "myths" today that unbelievers want to hear ?

1.  They are "divine" in some way

2.  They possess a good "human nature."

3.  No one can judge them, not even God.

4.  They have within themselves all they need for their own truth and morals.

5.  They have an absolute free will that even God cannot violate.

6.  They are autonomous, i.e. independent of God and the Bible.

7.  Their reason, experience, feelings and faith are sufficient for all things.

8.  Man is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.

9.  Man is the measure of all things, including God.

10 Natural Law, Religion, Theology, and Apologetics.

11. They can be whatever they want to be.

12. They can do whatever they want to do.

13. They can know whatever they want to know.

14. They have infinite potential.

15. Ignorance is the problem and knowledge is the cure.

16. There is a secret of living the good life, and if they find it, they will be healthy and wealthy.

17. They need a good self - image.

18. We are all OK.

19. God is all Love.

20. There is no day of Judgment.

21. There is no hell to fear.

22. All people are good deep down.

23. There is no such thing as sin.

24. There are many ways to heaven.

25. Everyone will end up in heaven.

26. The heathen are not lost.

    These myths represent the core of what is preached today

in most mega-churches. They offer a smorgasbord of self-help psychobababble sermons that uplift and affirm people in their sin. The cross is not preached. Sin is not mentioned. Health and wealth are the promised blessings of salvation. For the statist / humanist: Heaven is here and now and there is no Hell to fear. This is why Natural Law, Natural Religion, Natural Theology, and Natural Apologetics are humanistic in nature and come by pagan philosophers.

February 8, 2013 at 9:34 a.m.
Easy123 said...

When you don't have a rebuttal, COPY AND PASTE!

February 8, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
conservative said...

caddy,

Proverbs 17:10 KJV A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.

Some fools are impervious to truth.

February 8, 2013 at 10:32 a.m.
Easy123 said...

1 Corinthians 1:27-

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;"

Apparently, your god had a few different opinions on fools.

February 8, 2013 at 10:54 a.m.
conservative said...

Yes, there are many facts about fools.

Proverbs 10:23 KJV

It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom

February 8, 2013 at 11:08 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Yet both of those verses don't coincide with the one I provided.

Your god chose the foolish things, remember? Wouldn't that mean your god chose the fools? Let's see you defend that contradiction.

February 8, 2013 at 11:12 a.m.
jesse said...

I wish Clay would do a toon on Religion! Get all the "TRUE BELIEVERS" of WHATEVER ilk into terminal apoplexy!

BRP: I read the study from Harvard you posted the link to,strange considering where it came from! Hard for a lib to trash mouth something like that coming from an Ivy league school!

February 8, 2013 at 11:19 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

jesse said... "I read the study from Harvard you posted the link to,strange considering where it came from! Hard for a lib to trash mouth something like that coming from an Ivy league school!"

It is vitally important that we address the sources that have bred the violent culture in our big cities and do not let progressives use the problem as an excuse for taking freedom away from law abiding citizens.

It is the violence everyone! It is a really big problem that no one seems to be talking about while simple minded dorks like Clay Bennett try to keep the conversation about firearm ownership.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

February 8, 2013 at 11:51 a.m.
conservative said...

easy:

You don't understand:

1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned ."

"Your god chose the foolish things, remember?"

The context of "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;" 1 Corinthians 1:27 was referring to the gospel - " But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;" 1:23

You see ( just a figure of speech because you don't see ; see 1 Corinthians 2:14 above) God chose what YOU deemed foolishness, that is the Gospel and those who receive and obey it - "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;" (the fools who think they are wise) 1:27, that is, YOU.

Now, as I have told you in the past, you have convinced me that since you are an atheist, you are a fool, a heathen and an antichrist as well.

Now, run along an convince someone else.

February 8, 2013 at 12:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

Wouldn't guns be, at least, one of the sources that bred the violent culture in highly populated areas?

You do realize you're saying violence causes gun violence, correct? That idea isn't as novel as you're trying to make it out to be.

February 8, 2013 at 12:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"You don't understand:"

You don't either.

"You see God chose what YOU deemed foolishness, that is the Gospel and those who receive and obey it - "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;" (the fools who think they are wise) 1:27, that is, YOU."

So people like me are being referred to as foolish and wise in the same verse. But we aren't really wise, we just think we are. And your god really didn't choose the foolish things, he chose the "real" wise things. LMFAO! How do you know which "fools" your holy book is talking about in those other verses then? You're advocative that your holy book is using the word "wise" sarcastically. How do you know the difference?

That doesn't make sense considering it would have been very easy just to say as much but, instead, you have to make inferences like that which have absolutely no basis until you read ahead. That's not how literature works. You can't make reference to a concept that you haven't talked about yet. This is the problem with your Bible. You can make any number of concessions or inferences by cherry-picking verses that seemingly reconcile the "true" meaning of a verse. But why would an all-knowing god have to allow for such concessions or inferences? That's a question you'll never be able to answer.

"Now, as I have told you in the past, you have convinced me that since you are an atheist, you are a fool, a heathen and an antichrist as well."

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

"Now, run along an convince someone else."

It's not my fault you're a coward. You're the one running.

February 8, 2013 at 12:16 p.m.
caddy said...

I'd like to get back to the original toon. The safest place for a gun is at the bottom of the sea.

Tell me liberals: Should the president start by example and throw all his Secret Service's guns that protect his family in the bottom of the sea ?

February 8, 2013 at 12:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"Should the president start by example and throw all his Secret Service and the guns that protect his family in the bottom of the sea ?"

No. But no one here is advocating a gun ban in the first place.

I'd also like to point out that the President is in much greater danger than you or myself. If you can't see that then you're mentally compromised.

"Hypocrisy ?"

No.

February 8, 2013 at 12:22 p.m.
caddy said...

It would seem the Children in Gun free Zones are in danger too, but let's not protect them with guns; let's protect them by banning guns in those zones.

If you think people are safe in gun free zones then you are mentally compromised.

Also, what makes you so sure what Obama's motives are for guns ? There was much misinformation about Sandy hook, but I'd venture that you believe EVERYTHING CNN report and ... didn't report.

February 8, 2013 at 12:26 p.m.
caddy said...

Liberals can't commit hypocrisy, right ! ; D

Their motives are pure as the driven snow.

February 8, 2013 at 12:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"It would seem the Children in Gun free Zones are in danger too, but let's not protect them with guns; let's protect them by banning guns in those zones."

It's worked pretty well so far.

"If you think people are safe in gun free zones then you are mentally compromised."

How so? How is a gun free zone unsafe?

"Also, what makes you so sure what Obama's motives are for guns ?"

Because they've been laid out pretty well with the E.O.'s. What makes you so sure of your conspiracy theories? It isn't the facts because they aren't on your side.

"There was much misinformation about Sandy hook, but I'd venture that you believe EVERYTHING CNN report and ... didn't report."

You've been watching too much YouTube. All that crap has already been debunked. I'd bet you'll believe any conspiracy theory/anti-Obama propaganda that comes down the pike.

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/16lkhq/this_sandy_hook_conspiracy_video_has_been_making/c7xjgzr

"Liberals can't commit hypocrisy, right !"

I already explained why it wasn't hypocrisy.

"Their motives are pure as the driven snow."

Your Christian Dominionist motives are very clear. So much for that "turn the other cheek" thing or that "live by the sword, die by the sword" deal. Hypocrisy?

February 8, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
caddy said...

Wow: I'm really having to ask you this ^

Ok, so, Criminals Respect Gun free zones...because it is the right thing to do. Right ! ?

Man, Sometimes I wonder why I even come to this forum to bother with this kind of thinking.

Stick with one topic at a time--because that is the thrust of the cartoon and thread. Focus.

February 8, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.
caddy said...

2nd Question: Are the president's children valuable than your children ?

February 8, 2013 at 12:52 p.m.
Maximus said...

I buy my gold at Goldline. Do you?

February 8, 2013 at 1:01 p.m.
tifosi said...

To caddy: What a stupid comment. The President's children are at more risk than mine. DOH!!! Engage brain before typing.

February 8, 2013 at 1:03 p.m.
nowfedup said...

Amusing how NRA and such talking points end up nearly same day as issued, note the SPLC was on TV this AM and now popping up under usually suspected blither's. Still waiting for someone to post exactly in detail how O or government is proposing to do away or violate 2nd Amd. But funny to read of guns and ammo sold out in today's paper and rip off price for same. Got to wonder just how dumb these gunnies really are as this is about the third of forth time NRA spin for gun mfgs/ammo sales has pulled off the same wonderful marketing ploy. But then to define insane is doing same dumb stupid thing time after time/ Gunnies and "patriots" you might start to worry if you really support that increased mental exam's to buy guns etc, as from how easily you are suckered and wet you pamper's about "gun gunn be gone" and clean out stores time after time. You fools do know that NRA IS A Registered lobby ONLY for gun/ammo mfgs, NOT a word about shooters other then panic stuff to separate them from money. Now really how often does NRA spin need to happen before you smarten up as you all are looking very stupid, again.

February 8, 2013 at 1:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"Ok, so, Criminals Respect Gun free zones...because it is the right thing to do. Right ! ?"

Criminals don't respect any zones whether it is gun-free or not.

"Man, Sometimes I wonder why I even come to this forum to bother with this kind of thinking."

I wonder why you come here as well spouting the same ignorant WingNut talking points.

"Stick with one topic at a time--because that is the thrust of the cartoon and thread. Focus."

You can't even stick with addressing simple questions, much less this topic. Take your own advice.

"Are the president's children valuable than your children ?"

Considering they are the President's children, that family is at risk 24/7, and they can't help the fact that they receive Secret Service protection, I'd have to say yes, at least as far as the U.S. government is concerned.

That's the way it has always been and that's the way it will always be. The President's children get extra protection because they are the President's children. If you were President, your kids would get the same protection. But I would expect someone like you to make a false equivalency and act like the President's children are in the same situation that yours are. Fallacy is the WingNut way.

February 8, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

I'm celebrating Charles Darwin's birthday on February 12th. Thanks to scientific inquiry and free thought, we live in a universe where beliefs in deities, miracles, demons, devils, angels, and the supernatural are fading fast.

Another nail in the coffin for the literal and inerrant Bible and the ignorant who believe the stories, myths and fables as real history and science.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin. Thanks.

February 8, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
tifosi said...

Save the children from stupid gun owners:

3-year old Tmorej Smith and his 7-year old sister were in their parents' bedroom in their Greenville, South Carolina apartment when they found a loaded, unsecured gun and began playing with it.

One of them discharged the gun, and a round hit Tmorej in the head, killing him.

The parents were gone at the time, but their grandparents were in another room of the apartment.

February 8, 2013 at 1:08 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Save the children from stupid swimming pool owners.

Thadd Michael Rassi, son of Derek and Rebekah Rassi, was found face down in the pool of the Dennis and Diane Rassi home about 6:30 p.m. Monday, according to the medical examiner’s office.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/carlock-boy-drowns-in-texas-swimming-pool/article_3cc50eb6-70c6-11e2-b1da-0019bb2963f4.html

Children under 12 years old are 3 times more likely to be killed by a swimming pool than a firearm, and that does not take into account that there are a lot more firearms than swimming pools out there.

http://www.dailyillini.com/opinion/columns/article_ff0d0b0a-5f90-11e2-ad5c-0019bb30f31a.html

So let's stop using death counts as the sole justification for banning things, unless you are willing to start with the swimming pools.

February 8, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
caddy said...

I asked you a simply question. Ethically, morally, not based on pecking order, are his children more important than yours? We all know there's a pecking order to societies. I asked you IF his children were more important to protect than your children. Should you and the school of your choice use the same means -- namely weapons -- to protect your children.

February 8, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
conservative said...

"Save the children from stupid gun owners:"

"Save the children from stupid swimming pool owners "

Both arguments recognize the fact that killing is not the fault of an inanimate object

Thanks for recognizing that tifosi.

One new convert for truth and common sense?

February 8, 2013 at 1:40 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

So we drone on and on about inanimate objects and ignore the culture of violence that is killing so many in this country.

When are we going to start discussing the important stuff and stop being led around by our policial handlers?

February 8, 2013 at 1:42 p.m.
conservative said...

caddy,

I tried to tell you.

February 8, 2013 at 1:43 p.m.
tifosi said...

REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!

February 8, 2013 at 1:43 p.m.
conservative said...

"REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!"

Good luck with that. You would have better luck raising concrete squash

February 8, 2013 at 1:50 p.m.
limric said...

Caddy,

I noticed you couldn't/wouldn't answer Micky Rats question. Intellectual laziness isn't it.

“Christians mouth gods Golden Rules and forgiveness, yet invented hell. A god who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, the very humanity he abused to worship him!" ~Mark Twain

Atheism: My personal relationship with reality.

February 8, 2013 at 1:51 p.m.
caddy said...

Exactly, thank you conservative. Whatever the president wants to do with guns will be every bit as successful as Prohibition was in the 20s. You can't fix certain problems by throwing laws at law-abiding citizens. At the root, this is the basic problem. I have no doubt that even liberals know this. Liberals have to live up to their knee-jerkisms however -- as Biden did -- when he stated: We just have to do something. It doesn't matter whether its successful, has any hope of working, we just have to be showing that we care. Well, as my post above suggest, liberals don't really care about your children. IF they did, they'd be more concerned about the nation of people who abort their children.

Hypocrisy ? Absolutely.

It's more important for the liberal to be about "doing something" just as they were about doing something in the 60s with all initiatives aimed at social justice programs. I think we've learned a lot ( at least some have ) that you can't fix certain "people" problems by throwing money at the situation.

February 8, 2013 at 1:52 p.m.
limric said...

BRP Quote, ""When are we going to start discussing the important stuff and stop being led around by our political handlers?"*

You're right. More Drones and surveillance anyone?
Shh, don't talk about that. How about it Mr. Bennett, a cartoon like this:

http://www.clowncrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Bonehead.jpg

February 8, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
tifosi said...

"Good luck with that. You would have better luck raising concrete squash"

That's what the Methodists said about the 18th Amendment getting repealed.

February 8, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
conservative said...

"Good luck with that. You would have better luck raising concrete squash"

That's what the Methodists said about the 18th Amendment getting repealed.

February 8, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.

I don't believe you. That is my line.

February 8, 2013 at 2:18 p.m.
tifosi said...

"I don't believe you. That is my line."

Children keep getting slaughtered and the 2nd Amendment will be a goner too. You and the NRA better get off your butts and do something. The rest of us are fed up with your whiney excuses.

February 8, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
caddy said...

Limric

As I stated, I'd rather stick to the original toon and focus on that. I'm not interested in attempting to proving the existence of God. It's not important to me that you think like I do or believe like I do. As a believer, Scripture is completely at home with the notion that God deals with his creation in one of two ways: In Mercy or In Justice. No man deserves His Mercy because He is perfect and requires the same of us. Fortunately, we ( those He has caused to believe ) have a scapegoat in Christ.

Now, again, people such as yourself are vehemently against any notion of God. To them I say: I have no problem with you. People such as yourself do not keep me awake at night hoping for their conversion. Why ? Because I understand that there truly is no Mercy to the man who believes he needs none.

February 8, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
alprova said...

It has been disheartening to read some of the hete filled, moronic comments posted in here over the last 24 hours, but then I had reason to smile.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 made a very profound statement that some people did not appreciate. I don't remember exactly what class of people he was referring to at the time, but his words could very easily describe more than a few participants in this thread.

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Then, I had another thought that made me smile more.

All you folk who spew hate day in and day out, who cherry-pick the Bible as a means to condemn others, not to mention take any and every opportunity to denegrate the President, are indeed clingers of guns and the Bible.

Every one of you seeth bitterness. Your posts are rarely, if ever, expressions of something positive. The vibes one gets from reading your posts are always negative.

Are you interested in learning what it is that made me smile the most?

The thought that not a one of you is in any position to alter the lives of a doggone soul, outside of your own home perhaps. You can sling those cherry-picked scriptural quotes, you can be as hateful as can be, and dengegrate our President to your heart's content.

What you will never do is to change anyone else's mind in the slightest to agree with your beliefs, and Barack Obama will be President for the next four years.

And there is nothing you can do about that but beotch...beotch...beotch.

February 8, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

The stench from the gargantuan amount of BS that caddy is piling on today is nauseating, but two things have struck me that I will comment on. In one of his earlier dumpings he said this: "That type of freedom was tried during the French Revolution. Seems your (sic) not much of a student of history on how that revolution was different than our own glorious revolution...and why."

Of course there were horrendous excesses in the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution. No revolution is clean, quick, and without its own horrors in its transition. But that revolution was necessary in order to displace the oppressive church and aristocracy. While the initial freedoms attained by the bourgeoisie and peasantry were excessive and led to their own sorts of oppression, the end result, many years later, would be the formation of the French republic, with the emphasis on the same sort of freedoms that we espoused in our Declaration of Independence. The French Revolution was ugly and brutal in its inception but it was a necessary stepping stone to freedom for the masses.

While you seem to think that our American Revolution was more "glorious," comparing ours with theirs is like trying to compare apples to oranges, because we were separated from our oppressors by an entire ocean. Once we defeated the redcoats/Tories we did not have to live with our former oppressors (other than the surviving soldiers who fought here) in our very midst, so the notion of retribution for their previous crimes against us and the fears of their regaining power in some way were less of a factor. We were completely free to institute the government that suited us, with an entire frontier (literally and figuratively) before us to explore and shape to our liking.

Nevertheless, the treatment the remaining Tories (loyalists) got at the hands of the American patriots was not much better than the members of the church and aristocracy got at the hands of the French bourgeoisie. Many of them were tarred and feathered, had their land and homes destroyed or confiscated, and were brutally murdered. So our American patriot forefathers were not much more gracious in the expression of their newfound freedom than the French were in theirs.

February 8, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

continued...

As for your comment that there was much "misinformation" about Sandy Hook: the initial misinformation had to do with the number and types of guns that Adam Lanza used. Some websites are still spreading the lie that Lanza didn't even use an assault rifle (pardon me if I'm offending you technologically precise experts in calling it an "assault" rifle when, in your eyes, it's more like a "sporting" rifle or whatever), but the latest report from the Connecticut state police is this: he had on his person a .323-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a Glock 10 mm handgun, a 9 mm Sig-Sauer handgun, and various 30-round clips. He used the Bushmaster in killing the 20 kids and 6 teachers. He then used one of the handguns to kill himself. A 12-gauge shotgun was still in the trunk of his car.

February 8, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
tifosi said...

"What you will never do is to change anyone else's mind in the slightest to agree with your beliefs, and Barack Obama will be President for the next four years.

And there is nothing you can do about that but beotch...beotch...beotch "

You are so right. They call our President a "dictator" or "tyrant", which is the same as spitting in the face of Americans. The American people are the ones that duely elected President Obama by the law of the land. The whiners you describe are just sore losers whose party could not select a candidate that could be elected. WHY??? Because America is changing and it is leaving all the backwards thinkers behind. CHANGE IS COMING!!!

February 8, 2013 at 2:58 p.m.
caddy said...

Obama did make a Profound statement back in 2008 in the following !

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He should lead the way and do as Clay suggests: Throw his guns and his secret service's guns that protect his children to the bottom of the sea and lead like all great leaders -- lead by example.

* Chuckling

February 8, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
tifosi said...

The Secret Service know how to secure a firearm.

February 8, 2013 at 3:07 p.m.
tifosi said...

So does Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!

February 8, 2013 at 3:12 p.m.
caddy said...

I know how to secure a firearm too, tifosi. If you don't you shouldn't mess with them. If you have children in public schools, I would think they would be safer where some one is trained with said firearm as opposed to having a "gun - free zone" where they are sitting ducks.

February 8, 2013 at 3:12 p.m.
conservative said...

tifosi:

"You and the NRA better get off your butts and do something."

The NRA and I have long advocated the death penalty for murder (I for one am following God on that) and keeping criminals in jail and the mentally ill institutionalized. Liberals have in large part prevented all that . Innocent blood is on their hands.

Mankind has used inanimate objects to kill others since the beginning. Only God can change the heart.

When one recognizes that he is a lost sinner and accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior and repents of his sins, that one is regenerated by the power of God and has a new heart. A person with a new heart will certainly seek to fulfill the supreme law of God " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." and "thy neighbour as thyself." That person is unlikely to use any inanimate object to kill another save self defense or to protect the life of another.

It's all about the person, not the inanimate object. Focus on changing the heart of man and incarcerating those who murder with inanimate objects. You seemed to have understood that with your "Save the children from stupid gun owners" comment.

February 8, 2013 at 3:20 p.m.
tifosi said...

Why doesn't the NRA advocate securing firearms in the same way that any soldier will tell you to? Clay Bennett knows it too.

Failing to secure a firearm properly in the military will result in severe punishment.

February 8, 2013 at 3:23 p.m.
limric said...

Caddy/Conservative,

I proffer no atheist diatribe, no name calling. Just a question.

Why is it important that Christianity be taught (as a requirement not elective) in public schools?

February 8, 2013 at 3:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

limric said... "Shh, don't talk about that. How about it Mr. Bennett, a cartoon like this: "

http://www.clowncrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Bonehead.jpg

Right on Limric! That is pretty funny to boot.

February 8, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

tu_quoque said... "Americans are out of sorts, and increasingly they're unhappy with the government."

That always happens when government starts crawling into every nook and cranny of your life. They will never figure out that as they try to force everyone into the same government conceived template that they make more people unhappy than they can ever please. Stupid Statists.

February 8, 2013 at 3:34 p.m.
limric said...

tifosi,

The difference is in the organization. Ie. the military is an open group with a plethora of deadly machinery. The division, company, the platoon, the squad etc. The securing of weapons is also contingent on location and mission. Personal/civilian weapons are within a dwelling. Ie. properly secured. Well, they should be.

Incidents of improperly secured weaponry is actually much more prevalent in the military than in civilians homes. This isn't to excuse idiots leaving loaded .357's around the house, it just is.

February 8, 2013 at 3:35 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Stupid Statists (SS). I might have to use that going forward. It has a nice appropriate ring to it.

February 8, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
tifosi said...

"Personal/civilian weapons are within a dwelling. Ie. properly secured."

If that is secure, then why do children keep getting killed by them? Twice as many children were killed by guns than law enforcement officers.

"Following the NRA's advice to put armed guards in schools, the Chatfield Charter School in Lapeer, Michigan, hired an armed security guard to patrol its campus. Clark Arnold seems like a good choice, as a 32-year veteran of the local sheriff's department.

But only three days after being hired, Clark left his handgun in a bathroom for kids to find.

Luckily, the gun was unloaded, and no one was injured.

No charges are likely to be filed."

February 8, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

In the context of kill lists created in the name of "national security", this would be an interesting topic to banter about...

http://www.examiner.com/article/dr-martin-luther-king-assassinated-by-us-govt-king-family-civil-trial-verdict

February 8, 2013 at 3:57 p.m.
tifosi said...

A man in Richmond, Virginia, 58-year-old Casper R. Jones, was babysitting his 4-year old great-nephew when the boy found a loaded, unsecured handgun and discharged it, hitting Jones in the head. Jones was taken to the hospital, but later died from his wound.

February 8, 2013 at 4 p.m.
tifosi said...

Four children between the ages of 4 and 6 were playing in a home in Kansas City, Missouri, when the father left home, leaving his loaded, unsecured handgun within easy reach of the kids. One of the children found the gun and discharged it, hitting a 4-year old girl. The girl is now in critical condition.

February 8, 2013 at 4:01 p.m.
tifosi said...

A 12-year old boy in Breckenridge, Missouri, handled a loaded, unsecured handgun in his home and unintentionally shot himself, dying from his wound.

February 8, 2013 at 4:02 p.m.
tifosi said...

A 12-year old boy in Pleasant Valley, Alabama, received a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas.

He was showing off his weapon to his 12-year old male cousin, while on a trampoline, when he unintentionally discharged it, killing his cousin.

February 8, 2013 at 4:03 p.m.
tifosi said...

A 14-year old boy in Mesa, Washington, got hold of his family's unsecured, loaded .22-caliber rifle and unintentionally shot his 15-year old brother in the abdomen. Luckily, the boy will survive.

February 8, 2013 at 4:04 p.m.
tifosi said...

An 8-year old boy, Easton Brueger, was at home in Bennettsville, South Carolina, while his father was cleaning his rifle. The father, Justin Brueger, had the rifle pointed at the son and unintentionally discharged it, hitting his son in the stomach. The boy later died from his wound.

February 8, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
tifosi said...

I hear this kind of thing going on in Chattanooga on the 4th. Stupid gun owners.

A 10-year old girl, Aaliyah Boyer, was setting off fireworks for New Year's in Elkton, Maryland, when she was shot through the top of her head by a bullet from celebratory gunfire.

She eventually died from her wound.

February 8, 2013 at 4:07 p.m.
tifosi said...

A 3-year old boy was visiting a home in Guthrie, Oklahoma, when he found a loaded, unsecured gun in the bedroom. He handled the gun and then unintentionally shot himself in the head, dying from the wound.

February 8, 2013 at 4:08 p.m.
tifosi said...

A loaded, unsecured gun was left on a table at a home in Conway, South Carolina. A 2-year old boy in the home found the gun and unintentionally shot himself in the chest, dying soon after.

February 8, 2013 at 4:09 p.m.
tifosi said...

Don't ya' just love permits for stupid gun owners???

A 12-year old boy, Kolton McKinney, and a friend went to see "The Hobbit" in a theater in Tillamook, Oregon, along with three busloads of 7th graders. When Kolton lowered his movie seat, though, he found a loaded 9mm semi-auto handgun with the safety off.

Authorities were notified. The owner of the gun, Gary Quackenbush, 61, eventually showed up to look for his missing gun, thinking it would be in the lost-and-found box. Quackenbush has a conceal carry permit.

February 8, 2013 at 4:10 p.m.
tifosi said...

All killed because a "law abiding" but stupid gun owner did not secure their firearms properly.

Charlotte Bacon, 6 Daniel Barden, 7 Rachel Davino, 29 Olivia Engel, 6 Josephine Gay, 7 Ana M Marquez-Greene, 6 Dylan Hockley, 6 Dawn Hochsprung, 47 Madeline F. Hsu, 6 Catherine V. Hubbard, 6 Chase Kowalski, 7 Jesse Lewis, 6 James Mattioli, 6 Grace McDonnell, 7 Anne Marie Murphy, 52 Emilie Parker, 6 Jack Pinto, 6 Noah Pozner, 6 Caroline Previdi, 6 Jessica Rekos, 6 Avielle Richman, 6 Lauren Rousseau, 30 Mary Sherlach, 56 Victoria Soto, 27 Benjamin Wheeler, 6 Allison N Wyatt, 6

February 8, 2013 at 4:12 p.m.
tifosi said...

A Minnesota father left a gun loaded and accessible for his 9 year old to find last August. His 2 year old son was shot and injured as a result. Now he has received a probation sentence for allowing access to a gun to his child.

February 8, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
tifosi said...

A 5-year old girl was in her home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, playing with her father's loaded, unsecured Glock semi-auto handgun. Her two younger siblings, ages 2 and 3, were there as well. That's when she discharged the gun, shooting through the bottom of her foot and out at her big toe.

The 27-year old father works as a security guard.

February 8, 2013 at 4:14 p.m.
tifosi said...

A 4-year-old boy was sent to the hospital in critical condition after he was found with a gunshot wound to the head in a north Houston apartment, police said. The Houston Police Department said officers were called to the 3200 block of Laura Koppe Road around 10:40 p.m. Tuesday. Officials said the boy somehow got his hands on a gun and shot himself as a 2-year-old child slept nearby. The boy’s parents were said to be home at the time but were in another room. Police said they interviewed the mom and dad, who said the child was supposed to be sleeping. The mother told police she believed the boy may have found the gun earlier in the day but hid it nearby before going to bed. The boy’s father told police the pistol belonged to him, but it wasn’t immediately clear where the weapon was normally kept. He was placed in handcuffs and put in a patrol car, but police said he was only being taken in for questioning. The young shooting victim’s grandfather identified the boy as Jose Luis. Luis, who was first sent to Northwest Memorial Hermann, was still fighting for his life at Texas Children’s Hospital as of Wednesday morning.

February 8, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.
tifosi said...

Every gun in the hands of a child must first pass through the hands of an adult.

LOCK THE D@MN GUNS UP!!!

February 8, 2013 at 4:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Boy tifosi, That is a whole lot of hate spewing from your keyboard. I suggest some psychiatric help.

February 8, 2013 at 4:17 p.m.
chatt_man said...

tifosi - I think everyone on here would agree that unattended guns need to be locked up, and owners need to be responsible, but that isn't safe enough for Bennett. He's not happy until they're all in the river. (not locked up, and retrievable) But, then, that's the distorted way liberals think.

Sorry you wasted so much googling...

February 8, 2013 at 4:40 p.m.
limric said...

Tu_quoque & BRP make good points,

I will go further and say that it’s more than just “they're unhappy with the government", It has been my observation that there is a smoldering, seething anger with the Govt. It is not left or right wing, Christian or Atheist; And is mostly color blind. It has turned an unaccountable Kleptocracy (our representative government - or whatever passes for it) against it's people. And much of the planet.

It's not Joe six pack that has caused such hatred of America across much of the world is it?

February 8, 2013 at 4:46 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

BRP, there is a huge difference between hatred and appropriate indignation. Tifosi is making a point that deserves to be made. If anybody is in need of psychiatric help it would be you.

February 8, 2013 at 4:48 p.m.
limric said...

Ohhkay Tifosi,

What would the repeal of the Second amendment accomplish?

February 8, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

BTW, BRP, your use of the word "statist" is growing a bit thin. You're kinda like jesse in his overuse of the word "idjit" and tu_quoque in her juvenile "LMFaO." Can't you come up with something different now and then, to at least show that you have a vocabulary above that of a 5th grader?

February 8, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.
una61 said...

The safest place for a gun is on the store shelf, unsold.

February 8, 2013 at 5:14 p.m.
fairmon said...

It seems the decison regarding guns should be left to states and locals. The 2nd amendment does not protect those owning guns or using them to commit a crime from federal laws which should be much more severe. As a liberatarian I do have to wonder if those electing the current president and congress should be allowed to be in possession of a fire arm, a sling shot, BB gun or other potentially dangerous instrument requiring the ability to chew gum and walk simultaneously. He is the president for four years and that is a fact then if we still have the right to vote there is no telling what we will get. That of course will depend on who can convince voters they will borrow, spend and give them more than their opponent.

February 8, 2013 at 5:15 p.m.
tifosi said...

When the first 10 constitutional amendments were ratified they were nothing short of brilliant, offering our young nation both a unifying moral foundation and an exemplary blueprint for future self-governance. Yet, according to congressional expert Ilona Nickels, George Washington's view of the new constitution was that it was an "imperfect product made more perfect by the ability to amend it."

Nine of those first ten amendments have withstood the test of time and events (including, I suppose, the one that talks about quartering soldiers in one's home). One of them, however, is out of date.

The Second Amendment was apt for its day, a shrewd mix of freedom ("the right to keep and bear arms") and duty (the "well-regulated militia" clause). But it was meant for the realities of American life over two centuries ago. The country, 90 percent rural, had no standing army. And available "arms" were pretty much limited to muzzle-loading muskets that took the typical shooter a full minute to load and get off a single shot.

February 8, 2013 at 5:20 p.m.
tifosi said...

The Second Amendment (Revised)

In keeping with the historic right of the people to keep and bear Arms in order to protect and provide for themselves and their families, or to enjoy hunting, target practice and shooting matches, Congress shall make no law that infringes upon this right; Congress shall, however, have an affirmative duty to provide for the safe manufacture, sales, and handling of Arms; Congress shall have a duty to require registration and tracking of all Arms; Congress shall require the regulated licensing of those who would own such Arms; Congress shall have a duty to prohibit civilian possession of military or police assault rifles, large-capacity ammunition magazines, armor-piercing bullets, or other Arms features or policies that unduly jeopardize domestic safety and tranquility.

February 8, 2013 at 5:22 p.m.
Walden said...

Guns don't kill people, large liberal, pro-gun control, Aftrican American, pissed off, ex-LAPD cops do!

February 8, 2013 at 5:28 p.m.
fairmon said...

tifosi...would your revised 2ND amendment prevent an atrocity like that in the Connecticut school? Would it prevent criminals or the mentally deranged from having destructive weapons. Some guns should be registered with qualifications processes in place to legally own them with severe penalties for violations or committing a crime with any gun. However, a gun that can be carried in a pocket holster for personal protection should not occupy resources required to track & control more dangerous weapons. Back ground checks, training and permits are good.

Deer hunters are using a GPS, scent killers, camouflage clothing, high powered weapons and other advantage gaining inventions. What new gadgets do the deer have enabling their numbers to increase?

Why not require gun safety training and a mental evaluation to get a drivers license? Gun safety training can benefit anyone even if there is no plan to own a gun.

February 8, 2013 at 6:11 p.m.
tifosi said...

What would a new "right to bear arms" amendment look like? If I were writing it, it would contain provisions for:

• Registration of all firearms;

• Licensing of all gun owners, predicated on completion of a background check and a passing score in a reputable gun-safety course;

• Safe and secure storage and transport of all firearms;

• Criminal and civil penalties for owners whose guns have fallen negligently into the hands of violent felons, minors, the mentally ill;

• Ban on all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, except for those possessed by the military and law enforcement;

• Ban on so-called "armor-piercing" handgun bullets;

• The elimination of the infamous gun-show loophole in the Brady bill.

February 8, 2013 at 6:18 p.m.
limric said...

Tifosi,

Ah - but this is a revision, not a repeal. A HUGE difference. Most Americans I would bet revere the Bill of Rights not only for the elegant simplicity and meaning of its wording, but it guarantees that liberties are wrested in the people. Something a lot of Americans forget. And All inside the halls of …oh never mind. You know what I mean!

In this revised ‘Second Amendment’, there are enough ambiguities, caveats and loopholes to drive a truck through. Not only would that but it would never pass constitutional muster. In essence it would never pass a two-thirds House and Senate approval of the proposal and THEN send it to the states for a vote. Then a three-fourths of the states affirmation of the proposed revised ‘Second Amendment’. The only other method would be a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. If that ever happened you could rest assured the whole of the Bill of Rights would be open to (new and modern) interpretation. That scares the bejesus out of me.

February 8, 2013 at 6:20 p.m.
tifosi said...

I did not write the above regarding a revised 2nd Amendment. Norm Stamper did. I do think he has the right idea.

Norm Stamper is a 34-year veteran police officer who retired as Seattle's chief of police in 2000. He is currently a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com), a 10,000-member organization representing cops, judges, prosecutors, FBI/DEA agents, prison wardens and others who now want to legalize and regulate all drugs after witnessing horrors and injustices fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs." In addition to serving as Seattle's top cop, Norm led San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson's Crime Control Commission. He is the author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing.

February 8, 2013 at 6:21 p.m.
tifosi said...

"Ah - but this is a revision, not a repeal."

A repeal of an Amendment is an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment. That is how the U.S. Constitution is written. You should read it again sometime. It is always a refreshing read.

February 8, 2013 at 6:25 p.m.
limric said...

Ok, Norm Stamper wrote it.

My second paragraph stands.

February 8, 2013 at 6:26 p.m.
rick1 said...

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey

"I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." - William S. Burroughs

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason,Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed...." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject." - Anon.

February 8, 2013 at 6:31 p.m.
limric said...

The tenor of your at 9:23 a.m post,
REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!” certainly would give anyone the impression that you favor revocation.

Your 6:25 post is merely arguing semantics. You're dancing. If not, then why use the word REPEAL instead of revise or modify?

February 8, 2013 at 6:35 p.m.
tifosi said...

"In this revised ‘Second Amendment’, there are enough ambiguities, caveats and loopholes to drive a truck through. Not only would that but it would never pass constitutional muster."

Geez limiric. I can't beleive you would say that. If it "IS" the Constitution by means of being an amendment, then it passes muster because it IS THE CONSTITUTION!!! DOH!

February 8, 2013 at 6:35 p.m.
tifosi said...

"My second paragraph stands. "

Do any of your paragraphs NOT stand???

February 8, 2013 at 6:37 p.m.
limric said...

Quote Tifosi:

"If it "IS" the Constitution by means of being an amendment, then it passes muster because it IS THE CONSTITUTION"!!!

HOW? It's not an Amendment. WTF are you talking about.

Unless of course you think that your (Norm Stamper's)'Revised Amendment' truly IS a Constitutional amendment - and thus by means of it being an amendment, then it passes muster because it IS THE CONSTITUTION!

Whoo that made my head hurt. Where's Groucho Marx when I need him?

My second paragraph stands!

February 8, 2013 at 6:54 p.m.
limric said...

No Tifosi, a lot of my paragraphs are for the slushpile.

The second paragraph of my 6:20 p.m. post however stands.

February 8, 2013 at 6:59 p.m.
tifosi said...

This is a little over your head. Forget it.

February 8, 2013 at 7:25 p.m.
limric said...

Pardon me Tifosi, I think you promote my sometimes strange interludes:

Yes of course. I came down here for Amendments. What did I get, not even ice cream. This world would be a better place for children if Tifosi had to eat the spinach.

February 8, 2013 at 7:33 p.m.
tifosi said...

If guns don't kill people, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why don't we just send people?

February 8, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
tderng said...

Anyone who says that the 2nd amendment is out of date because the weapons back then were muskets should agree the same logic can apply to the 1st amendment. Any use of an electrical device to spread the thoughts of an individual should be subject to governmental regulations. Any use of said devices to spread other than government sponsored propaganda should be subject to fines imprisonment or both. After all the framers of the constitution could never have forseen radio,tv,or the internet. The only way back then to spread their beliefs was written on paper or shouted from a soapbox. So how about it tifosi,want to repeal the 1st amendment too?

February 8, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Limric, you are correct in stating that a revision of the second amendment "would never pass constitutional muster." There are far too many gun lovers and Constitutional purists who think that to alter one word of it - especially the second amendment - would be sacrilege. But you grossly exaggerate "the elegant simplicity and meaning of its wording" - especially as pertains to the second amendment. You say that tifosi's (Stamper's) proffered revision has enough caveats, ambiguities, and loopholes to drive a truck through, but I daresay it's not nearly as ambiguous as the original wording. If the original wording is so clear and unambiguous, why is it that we had to turn to the Supreme Court to interpret it for us in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia?

As for a "well regulated militia," the people alive then had no problem understanding what that meant. Today, however, we are left debating amongst us just what in tarnation that's supposed to mean. It's about as clear as mud. Every gun lover thinks that a well regulated militia means nothing more than Bubba and whatever type of gun he can get his hands on - the bigger and badder the better. But to others who are not so quick to read such a loose interpretation into it, we are scratching our heads and asking, "Just WTF is a well regulated militia supposed to be? " - especially considering the fact that we already have a standing military and National Guard, and every community in every town across America has a well regulated police force?

Our nation has changed drastically in the 226 years since the inception of our Constitution. The premise and underlying principles of it are indeed brilliant and should be left intact. But the forefathers were wise enough to know that certain changes would need to be made from time to time. And as far as the second amendment is concerned, in a nation that is awash in guns and gun violence, and hi-tech weapons of mass destruction exist that our forefathers never could have imagined, and we have a standing military and National Guard at the ready (something that was totally nonexistent then), it's high time that we had a rethinking, revising of the second amendment and how it applies to us today.

But, like I said, you are correct, I'm sure, in stating that it will never happen. We are at the mercy of the power-mongering, money-grubbing NRA and the weak-kneed politicians who cower before it, gun lovers/fetishists, and people who would gladly take up their arms and kill anybody who would dare to change one hallowed word of their sacred second amendment, thinking the time for open rebellion had finally come. America is guns and guns is America - it's as simple as that. In the meantime those of us who don't share your passion, fetish, or fascination for guns watch in horror and disgust as the gun lovers play cowboy and Rambo with their deadly toys, and the dead bodies of people riddled with bullets continue to pile up.

February 8, 2013 at 7:40 p.m.
alprova said...

rick 1 quoted: "The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey"

As it has been written before in here and elsewhere, if there were people in Washington D.C. who decided to become actual tyrants, who decided to seize unlimited control of this nation, 'which is always possible,' I don't care if you have a fully loaded AR-15 in your hands, You might as well have a pea-shooter for all the good it would do if a bomb is dropped nearby from a plane.

Any assertion that all these guns in the hands of citizens will protect the population from a tyrannical government, is a bit silly when you think about it.

Those who are fighting tooth and nail to keep their hand cannons have a very personal reason for desiring to keep them. Why won't these people admit the truth?

People who like big and powerful guns probably have their very own John Holmes penis pump stashed under their beds and pop Viagra pills like they do breath mints.

February 8, 2013 at 7:44 p.m.
limric said...

Better yet Tifosi, why don't we send our big mouth leaders? THAT I'd like!

February 8, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

tdering, correct me if I'm wrong but we don't have dead bodies piling up from wordy lunatics or otherwise bad people spraying clips full of words at crowds of people. Words have power, yes, but I still haven't known of anybody to be killed directly from them. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

February 8, 2013 at 7:50 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

alprova, your post is right on.

February 8, 2013 at 8 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Police on Friday were investigating what they called a bizarre incident following an overnight burglary at a doctor's office in Carol Stream, Ill., outside Chicago.

"...An officer responding to the burglary walked into an MRI room at the office on the 600 block of East St. Charles Road Friday morning, the building's owner said. The MRI machine's magnetism pulled away the officer's gun, which became stuck in the machine. Because there is no way to turn off the magnetism, the gun remained in place and no one was allowed inside the building."

Stick to your guns, boys!

February 8, 2013 at 8:12 p.m.
patriot1 said...

alpo(registered republican) writes: "Those who are fighting tooth and nail to keep their hand cannons have a very personal reason for desiring to keep them"

Yeah alpo, it's their right!!! The second ammendment is the only right defined in the Bill of Rights that an individual has to pay to exercise. As you said in a previous post, deal with it bitches!!

The weak statements from Barry is about all we're going to see relating to gun control.

February 8, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
tderng said...

tifosi said... If guns don't kill people, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why don't we just send people?

tifosi,when your house was built did the builders use their bare hands to shape the wood? Did they use their bare hands to dig the foundation? Of course not,they used tools. Just as anyone using a gun is merely using a tool to accomplish their desired result.Sometimes the tool is misused or the tool falls into the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it. But in the end it is only a tool.

February 8, 2013 at 8:28 p.m.
rick1 said...

Obama embraces the Muslim Brotherhood with the approval of the sale (paid for with aid money from the United States) of F-16s to the government of Mohammed Morsi.

Obama tells Americans we need to limit the bullets in our guns and we can not have semi automatic weapons.

Then we have people like Al, who are more concerned if someone has a penis pump and is taking viagra then our country giving fighter jets to a government that is run by a member of a terrorist group.

February 8, 2013 at 8:40 p.m.
tderng said...

Rickaroo said... tdering, correct me if I'm wrong but we don't have dead bodies piling up from wordy lunatics or otherwise bad people spraying clips full of words at crowds of people. Words have power, yes, but I still haven't known of anybody to be killed directly from them. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Words have killed more people,perhaps indirectly,than guns ever will. After all the pen is mightier than the sword. So should we regulate words? People throughout history have been whipped into a killing frenzy by the use of words and guns weren't even used until relatively recently.

I don't know about you but I prefer the right to defend myself in any manner I see fit. People who say that we wouldn't have a chance against the government should look to those fighting for freedom in the middle east against well armed governments. Somehow they are winning the wars there. Syria has very modern weapons and control of the skies and yet they are on the verge of being defeated by a loosely regulated poorly equipped militia of its citizens.

February 8, 2013 at 8:45 p.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "Yeah alpo, it's their right!!! The second ammendment is the only right defined in the Bill of Rights that an individual has to pay to exercise. As you said in a previous post, deal with it bitches!!"

The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when such weaponry was merely a dream. No civilian is assured any right to own military grade weaponry. If I am incorrect, please cite the relevant part of the 2nd Amendment that proves me incorrect.

As I have stated more than once, no one with the power to begin to do it, has called for any repeal of the 2nd Amendment provision for the people to own guns.

I'm not calling for any repeal of the 2nd Amendment or for any revisions to it either. But...not one person arguing this issue can offer a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own military grade weaponry.

I have had a conceal and carry permit for 13 years. I have owned firearms since I was 20 years of age. What I have never owned or had any desire to own, is a weapon capable of discharging any more than six bullets without the need to pause and reload.

Due to the NRA's recent stances and public statements of late, I let my 17 year membership lapse at the end of last month.

"The weak statements from Barry is about all we're going to see relating to gun control."

There are more people that the President who are pushing for realistic and sensible reform.

It's not going away any time soon, this time.

February 8, 2013 at 8:51 p.m.
limric said...

Au contraire RIckaroo,

I did not say nor intimate that the Second Amendment was unambiguous. It is. Possibly by design.

The crux of my paragraph, and most importantly, is that liberties are wrested in the people.

Whereas the Revised Second Amendment begins with: “Congress shall make no law”. But, after the semicolon comes “Congress shall, however”… That alone is a huge loophole open to any interpretation.

•affirmative duty to provide for the safe manufacture, sales, and handling of Arms.

•a duty to require registration and tracking of all Arms

•regulated licensing of those who would own such Arms

•And finally: a duty to prohibit civilian possession of military or police assault rifles, large-capacity ammunition magazines, armor-piercing bullets, or other Arms features or policies that unduly jeopardize domestic safety and tranquility.

UH OH!

Does ANY of this sound or even remotely adhere to liberties are wrested in the people. Remember, the first ten amendments are called the ‘Bill of Rights’. Not - what the Government grant you! Me thinks there was a reason it was so important. Mucking about with the constitution can get very sticky.

February 8, 2013 at 8:54 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Obama tells Americans we need to limit the bullets in our guns and we can not have semi automatic weapons."

As far as I am aware, the President has not made any objection to semi-automatic weapons. As someone pointed out, most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic.

What almost all people calling for gun control want banned from private ownership, are high caliber weapons capable of discharging high numbers of rounds without the need to reload.

When a soldier is at the forefront of a firefight, there is a certain need for the capacity to discharge numerous rounds without the need to pause and reload.

Private citizens have no legitimate need for such weapons capability. In my personal opinion, six shots is all one needs to disable, disarm, maim, or kill someone, if they know how to shoot a weapon. If they can't get the job done after discharging six rounds, they aren't any more likely to get it done if they have any more bullets available.

I'm wide open to consider any legitimate scenario where a private citizen may need such weapons capability. So far, no one has come up with one.

February 8, 2013 at 9:02 p.m.
dude_abides said...

tderng said... "Sometimes the tool is misused or the tool falls into the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it. But in the end it is only a tool."

That's what she said. Sorry, but did you really just type that? I mean, I guess you're right... sometimes a man's life can be altered by his inability to control his tool, or even by his ineptitude in wielding his tool. OMG! Did you also mention men shaping wood with their bare hands? Freud just rolled over in his grave.

February 8, 2013 at 9:04 p.m.
tifosi said...

"Mucking about with the constitution can get very sticky. "

Which is why we have TWENTY-SEVEN Amendments!

The first 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) are no different from the others. They are just the first ten.

February 8, 2013 at 9:05 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

limric said... "I will go further and say that it’s more than just “they're unhappy with the government", It has been my observation that there is a smoldering, seething anger with the Govt. It is not left or right wing, Christian or Atheist; And is mostly color blind. It has turned an unaccountable Kleptocracy (our representative government - or whatever passes for it) against it's people. And much of the planet. It's not Joe six pack that has caused such hatred of America across much of the world is it?"

Oh, I don't know, maybe it is something that comes with being the only government in the world would dare conduct drone strikes within sovereign nations that they have not declared war against. Maybe it comes with the imposition of sanctions. Maybe it comes with forcing "free" men into social contracts. Maybe it comes with imposing morality that conflicts with one's religious beliefs. I would imagine everyone has something they can think of that they are not fond of. That would be the consequence of a federal government that is not limited, but sees no limits to its power to act for "the better good".

February 8, 2013 at 9:17 p.m.
alprova said...

tderng wrote: "Then we have people like Al, who are more concerned if someone has a penis pump and is taking viagra then our country giving fighter jets to a government that is run by a member of a terrorist group."

Sir, with all due respect, it's not that I am unconcerned about such possibilities or probabilities. What I am is realistic about such things.

What the hell can I do about it? Our nation's leaders have been arming militias in other countries for as long as I have been alive. It's big business.

Are you so naive to believe that the current Administration is the only one to have done such a thing? The U.S. Government bought and paid for those jets, manufactured by Lockheed-Martin in 2010, awarding them to Egypt's air force, before Mohamed Morsi was elected.

His alliance with the United States is being questioned by some, that is true, but Lockheed-Martin has publicly declared that it has every intention of delivering each and every one of those planes. John Larson, vice president of Lockheed Martin F-16 programs weighed in on the matter recently;

"This is a great day for Lockheed Martin and a testament to the enduring partnership and commitment we have made to the government of Egypt, We remain committed to providing our customer with a proven, advanced 4th Generation multi-role fighter."

February 8, 2013 at 9:19 p.m.
limric said...

Oh Boy.

The first ten amendments ARE different. That's why they are called the Bill of Rights. The others are NOT. They are constitutional amendments.

I did not clarity my last sentence.

revised: Mucking about with the 'Bill of Rights' can get very sticky.

February 8, 2013 at 9:21 p.m.
patriot1 said...

alpo(registered republican) wrote: "The second ammendment was written at a time when such weaponry was merely a dream." I am sure there were "assault weapons" in the hands of individuals at the time the 2nd ammendment was written. I suspect they were long guns, with a bayonet attached, state of the art for their time. As was mentioned in a previous post, perhaps the press today should be using quill pens, since they were in use at the time the Bill of Rights was composed.

February 8, 2013 at 9:23 p.m.
limric said...

Alprova quote: The U.S. Government bought and paid for those jets, manufactured by Lockheed-Martin in 2010, awarding them to Egypt's air force, before Mohamed Morsi was elected. Lockheed-Martin has publicly declared that it has every intention of delivering each and every one of those planes."

Alprova is correct.

February 8, 2013 at 9:26 p.m.
limric said...

Good night Gracie...............

February 8, 2013 at 9:27 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Did you ever see the bit that goes something like... When the 1st Amendment was written, photographs, moving pictures, radio, telephones, inkjet printers, computers, cell phones, television (bubble headed bleach blonde), internet, social networking, text messaging, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC could not have been imagined by the writers, therefore...

February 8, 2013 at 9:31 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

limric said... "Oh Boy. The first ten amendments ARE different. That's why they are called the Bill of Rights. The others are NOT. They are constitutional amendments."

The SS does not care about rights. The Constitution is just a collection of words that they feel free to manipulate and revise as they see fit, for the contemporary, politically correct, version of "the better good".

February 8, 2013 at 9:34 p.m.
Walden said...

tifosi inquired "If guns don't kill people, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why don't we just send people?"

Uhh, because the bad guys (i.e. the bastards whose asses we are going to kick) have guns. Next question.

February 8, 2013 at 9:37 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Oh, I don't know, maybe it is something that comes with being the only government in the world would dare conduct drone strikes within sovereign nations that they have not declared war against."

I am one of many people who dares not presume to understand the inner intricacies of what our military involves themselves in or the reasons why.

At the same time, I am also a person who would much rather see our military personnel, safe and sound, sitting in control rooms, flying drones to carry out missions, rather than to read about our men and women dying on a field thousands of miles from their homeland.

It seems a bit weird to me, to read some of you protest missions being carried out that target terrorists, whom we all know would just love to carry out another 9/11.

Personally, I am tired of wars. I wish the United States military would pull all of its resources back home and concentrate on protecting our borders and forget this insane policy of involving us in protecting other nations.

Someone mentioned the word "tools" earlier. If war profiteers are what motivates our leaders to involve us in disputes around the world, open the flood gates and begin openly selling tools of destruction to both sides, let them have a blast playing with them, bury the dead, and maybe one day peace will return.

February 8, 2013 at 9:37 p.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "I am sure there were "assault weapons" in the hands of individuals at the time the 2nd ammendment was written."

You know full and well what type of weaponry people are referring to when they use the phrase "assault weapons." One lead ball, a little gun powder, and one shot is all there was back then.

"I suspect they were long guns, with a bayonet attached, state of the art for their time."

And I'm quite sure that mass killings of private citizens in theaters and school classrooms were something that was unimagined at the time too.

"As was mentioned in a previous post, perhaps the press today should be using quill pens, since they were in use at the time the Bill of Rights was composed."

Apples and watermelons. Instruments used to dispense ink on paper are not designed for or used by people on a regular basis to kill multiple people at a time.

You're free to dig up a news story that cites such an incident, but I seriously doubt that you or the person who made that silly comparison will ever find one.

February 8, 2013 at 9:47 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "Personally, I am tired of wars. I wish the United States military would pull all of its resources back home and concentrate on protecting our borders and forget this insane policy of involving us in protecting other nations."

I am with you on that one. It seems to me that our government creates enemies all over the world and then declares the world a dangerous place where rights to privacy and due process are obsolete.

February 8, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said "Private citizens have no legitimate need for such weapons capability. In my personal opinion, six shots is all one needs to disable, disarm, maim, or kill someone, if they know how to shoot a weapon. If they can't get the job done after discharging six rounds, they aren't any more likely to get it done if they have any more bullets available." Al said I'm wide open to consider any legitimate scenario where a private citizen may need such weapons capability. So far, no one has come up with one."

So you feel you are the one to decide what type of weapon a person should own and how many bullets they can have. This is the problem with liberals they want to tell everyone else how to live.

Al, I will meet you half way on gun control. Why punish everyone when we should really focus on those responsible?

Jared Loughner (Liberal) shoots Congresswomen Giffords.

Chris Dorner (Liberal) shoots and kills a law enforcement officer

Floyd Corkins (Liberal) attempts to shoot and kill Christians

Maybe we should ban guns from liberals.

February 8, 2013 at 9:57 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "And I'm quite sure that mass killings of private citizens in theaters and school classrooms were something that was unimagined at the time too."

And I am quite sure that the dumbing down of the governed with mindless television programming, a state complicit media, violence in video and games that aspires to rival the roman colosseums and, Glamor Girls, were all unimagined at the time.

So. Are you ready to open up the entire Bill of Rights to contemporary wisdom, especially now that we are functionally a democracy with total idiots wielding power at the voting booth?

February 8, 2013 at 9:59 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

rick1 said... "Maybe we should ban guns from liberals."

This would seem to support that notion...

http://www.nhinsider.com/storage/post-images/story_enhancements/Voting_vs_GunViolence.JPG?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1359896578296

February 8, 2013 at 10:04 p.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "So you feel you are the one to decide what type of weapon a person should own and how many bullets they can have."

Not at all. I merely expressed my opinion. I am under no illusion that my opinion will form a policy in this nation.

"This is the problem with liberals they want to tell everyone else how to live."

The problem, as I see it, is that you are unable to accept a differing opinion for that of your own. Nothing I have offered is akin to telling anyone how to live their life.

"Al, I will meet you half way on gun control. Why punish everyone when we should really focus on those responsible?"

I have a very good answer to that question. Because those responsible for such acts have found it very easy to access the weapons involved in this controversy.

I understand the fact that there are untold numbers of people out there who own these controversial weapons, but it is also a fact that they are in homes across America, and the next incident when one may be used to kill a crowd of people is waiting to happen.

No one can predict or say with any certainty that they or one of their children will absolutely not be the next person to use one in a mass killing.

Four years ago, Christopher Dorner, the target of a massive manhunt currently ongoing, was a decorated soldier, a police officer, and presumably, a decent man with everything to live for. What happened to him? He was fired from his job for allegedly filing false allegations against a fellow officer.

"Jared Loughner (Liberal) shoots Congresswomen Giffords. Chris Dorner (Liberal) shoots and kills a law enforcement officer. Floyd Corkins (Liberal) attempts to shoot and kill Christians."

"Maybe we should ban guns from liberals."

I'm not about to entertain any discussion that includes the guessing of the political leanings of anyone who has ever used a weapon to commit a spree or mass murder.

I'm quite sure that there are conservatives who have done the same, or worse. Right off the bat, Eric Rudolph comes to mind.

I again remind you that no one with the power to do so, is proposing banning the responsible ownership of all guns. Be careful that you are not proposing such a thing yourself.

February 8, 2013 at 10:46 p.m.
tderng said...

alprova said... tderng wrote: "Then we have people like Al, who are more concerned if someone has a penis pump and is taking viagra then our country giving fighter jets to a government that is run by a member of a terrorist group."

alprova... that was not posted by me.

February 8, 2013 at 11:09 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Are you ready to open up the entire Bill of Rights to contemporary wisdom, especially now that we are functionally a democracy with total idiots wielding power at the voting booth?"

You offer that as if your assessment of people as "idiots," who vote contrary to the way you do, is a provable fact.

Some people simply cannot accept a bit of reality, in that they are in the minority some of the time, or most of the time, depending on the issue or candidate.

A recent poll, conducted by Republican pollster Frank Lutz, discovered that between 70-74% of current NRA members agree with one or more proposals on the table that are considered new gun control measures.

Minimum age of ownership, enhanced background checks, and the outlawing of guns by people with any history of mental problems or who appear on a list of suspected terrorists, received the most favorable support.

The NRA spokespeople are opposed to all of the above. They are not listening to most of their members. I let my membership lapse due to this very issue.

I'm sure that I will not be the only one.

February 8, 2013 at 11:10 p.m.
tderng said...

dude_abides has an adolescent(?) fixation on mens tools.

February 8, 2013 at 11:12 p.m.
alprova said...

tderng wrote: "alprova... that was not posted by me."

Oops!! I do apologize for my mistake. Looking back, I see that rick1 wrote it.

Sorry 'bout that.

February 8, 2013 at 11:14 p.m.
nowfedup said...

A bit of perspective on a increasingly dumbed down citizenry. Our science folks at NASA are setting up to land on a 474 meter asteroid, sample it for makeup, return samples to Earth, We have several "rovers" roaming about Mars, sending data to us daily.

Then on other end of intelligence scale, we lead the world in gun violence, just find to have quasi combat guns, carry conceealed with not one test/shot fired or less then 20, and find only solution to mass murders with combat based guns is arm our schools, the ONLY nation to suggest 100% arming schools.

It seems para 1 reflect what the more evolved can accomplish while para 2 is how dumbed down "more guns needed" solution really is and and how lobby money runs this nation. Got to wonder how many times NRA can pull off,"Buy guns/ammo as guvernumut revnuers gunna take um" before some smarten up, this is third or forth time that one has been pulled off. So take a moment to actually educated selves on reality, and while at it, name the planets, exactly what 2nd right is being taken away and perhaps distance to Sun (without google search) Then ask how come nation that goes to space, needs to arm it's schools, teachers need guns and is this only solution or way for some to get reelected? Dare you take time to think, then ask.

February 11, 2013 at 11:18 a.m.
nowfedup said...

Just a few questions A. Should someone who has NEVER fired a gun, or handgun be permitted to carry a 30Rd cut down version of AK/AR under coat with a CCL? B. Why is USA ONLY nation that recommended by NRA to arm ALL schools? C. What is min caliber the "school armed guards" should carry, that will fully penetrate bullet proof jackets in use by shooters and not go through walls and kill kids. What is MIN shooting qualifications for armed school people?

February 15, 2013 at 10:15 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.