The new horizon of gun control, Part 4. “Wolves at the door”

posted at 9:46 am on December 21, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Today, in the final installment of this series, we will eschew a review of the “nuanced” strategy currently being employed by the wolves in sheep’s clothing working toward new gun suppression legislation and their willing media allies. That was covered well enough in the previous three columns, and links will be provided at the end in case you missed them. Forewarned being forearmed, as the saying goes, we should close out with a look at what is truly going on under the covers, what we should expect to see as this battle moves toward the halls of Congress and what – if anything – we, as a nation, can do to forestall an unfortunate result which currently appears far too likely.

For a good look at what you are truly up against, you need do little more than listen to the openly offered words of one of the chief architects of the current push for a gun grab… one Michael Bloomberg. He’s been making the rounds of every media outlet from Morning Joe to the full slate of Sunday gab fests, usually parroting the lines we featured before about “not wanted to take anyone’s guns” and respecting the first amendment. But he might have gotten a bit tired by the time he showed up for Nightline, and he let the mask slip fully from his face. Check this out. (Emphasis mine.)

“I think the public has finally come to the conclusion that, what the Supreme Court said you can do is have reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, is something that our society finally has woken up and said, ‘We are going to do this whether you like it or not,‘” Bloomberg said…

But if he had his preference, Bloomberg said he would go farther than the 1994 ban and outlaw all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. The mayor said magazines shouldn’t be allowed to contain more than five or even three rounds.

“If you haven’t hit the deer with three shots, you’re a pretty lousy shot. The deer deserves to get away,” he said.

Yes, he’s still repeating the “Second Amendment = Hunting” meme which we fairly well demolished yesterday, but Mr. Mayor is offering us far, far more in this interview. He’s not talking about only AR-15 style rifles. He’s looking to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons. That would include handguns and all. Further, the latest expected proposal, promised by Dianne Feinstein, regarding magazine capacity is for an already insultingly low ten rounds. But if he had his preferences he would try to lower it to three. He knows he can’t… yet. But if he manages to help ram through a limit of ten, you now know where the next goal post will be set. As Matt Lewis reminded us recently, sometimes the slippery slope is real.

Another glimpse into the mind of Bloomberg and company comes with the complete lack of seriousness on display when he gloats over his coming victory in the effort to disarm America. In one moment he is solemn and serious. In the next, he’s cracking jokes about two of the actually decent things Barack Obama accomplished during his first term, only moments after mourning the dead in Newtown.

What else should we be expecting? For one thing, more formerly Second Amendment supporting officials will be bailing out like rats fleeing a sinking ship. One of the latest is Bob Casey… yet another traditionally gun rights friendly Democrat who is putting his finger to the wind and deciding it’s time to jump.

Furrowing his brow and casting his eyes downward, Casey expressed regret that he had not reconsidered his views as starkly after earlier massacres at Virginia Tech and in Aurora, Colo.

“The power of the weapon, the number of bullets that hit each child, that was so, to me, just so chilling, it haunts me. It should haunt every public official,” said Casey, who won a second term six weeks ago while touting his opposition to gun control.

In the days since the shooting that killed 20 children and eight adults, the debate around gun laws has shifted. Democrats have called for reinstating the assault-weapons ban and barring magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“If those two bills come before the Senate, I’ll vote for both,” Casey said. He said his decision amounted to being “summoned by your conscience.”

Given the part of the country that Casey comes from and the number of years he has held his previous stance, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he truly did believe in the Second Amendment. But it’s also politically convenient – at a minimum – that he represents a lot of rural areas in central Pennsylvania where gun rights are part of his voters’ heritage. They “cling to them” and “their God” as our President once famously said of the area. It was part of Casey’s key to election day success.

You’re going to be seeing more of all of this as soon as the new year begins and Congress returns to their seats. So now we face the harder question. In the face of such an oppressive, steep hill, what is there to be done in the hopes of at least minimizing the damage, if not mitigating it entirely? Well… perhaps a few things.

The first, easiest and most obvious move is to make your voices known to those who depend on our votes for their livelihood. You can forget about the President, who no longer needs to care about winning another term. But the members of the House and Senate do. Particularly the House, where the GOP – weak kneed as they may be at times – still holds a solid majority. They are already moving into campaign mode for 2014 and more than a few are looking over their shoulders for possible primary challenges. This is the first, and possibly best hill to fight on. The Senate may hold a few wavering seats which will be subject to a tide of public displeasure as well. They need to be made aware that long held beliefs don’t dissipate overnight even following a one man tragedy such as we recently witnessed.

But there are other things you can do as well. One possibility is to lend your support – if not already doing so – to the NRA. They are under intense pressure at the moment and opponents seem to sense some blood in the water, thinking their influence is waning. I’ve had my own disputes with them over the years on various fine points of policy, but they remain one of the strongest, most influential and well funded voices on this subject in the nation. They need to see their support rise rather than fall in these dark times, or the liberal hopes for their de-clawing may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are smaller, local groups which will need your support as well. These include sporting clubs, shooting ranges and everywhere else that like minded groups seek to promote the safe, legal, constitutionally protected enjoyment of firearms. Get on Google and find out who is in your area.

And finally, no matter how cryptic some may wish to make this sound… arm yourself if it is something you feel inclined to do and have the financial resources to manage. The free market speaks volumes, and both politicians and some bastions of the media pay attention to it. Voting with your wallet is, if anything, possibly even more powerful than voting with your feet. If you need these tools not only for yourself, but to pass on to the next generation, you might thank me later. If this goes entirely pear shaped, it might be a while before they are available again.

Sadly, there is little beyond that to be done if I’m reading the cards correctly. The sad truth is that, beyond these types of actions and preparations, you potentially find yourself with only one more alternative in a worst case scenario.

Come and get ‘em.

Good luck to us all, and thanks for following along this week for this series. If we’ve managed to accomplish anything here, I hope it is to impart the message that this is not some far off, possible future of problems. The wolves are truly at the door and they will be sitting down in Washington DC in a couple of weeks, aided by nearly every media outlet in the country. But in the end, they are not the United States. This country isn’t a collection of politicians arguing in spacious halls. It’s a collection of papers more than two hundred years old. And with a bit of luck, it’s one thing more than that as well.

It’s you.

Related:
The new horizon of gun control, Part 1. A Violent Society
The new horizon of gun control, Part 2. The black hole of mental health
The new horizon of gun control, Part 3. “Military Style Weapons”
MSNBC host Chuck Todd on gun rights: “That’s a different America”
Slippery Slopes are Sometimes Real.
The missing link on gun control

Catch up with me on Twitter if you’d care to continue the discussion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

nonpartisan proves what I have been saying all my life, being college graduate does not prove that you are smart.

1sttofight on May 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I agree. My son, who had staunch conservative views all through high school, has developed liberal tendencies since graduating from college. He recently moved to Seattle, and regularly points out with pride that Seattle is the “2nd most educated city in the US.”

I have to keep reminding him that education does not automatically confer wisdom upon the recipient.

LooseCannon on May 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM

O’bama actually lost the college graduate vote in 2012.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM

sorry I’m not a Democrat.

partisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

You’re not being mocked (and not asked to die, btw) because you don’t know what skeet shooting is. You’re being mocked because you didn’t know what skeet shooting is and proceeded to make an ass of yourself anyway.

IOW, you are proud of your ignorance.

Tomblvd on May 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

You sure posted like you knew, Cliff Clavin.

If your mother had of taken it on the chin that night you wouldn’t be here to torture us with your silliness.

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Nonpartisan’s last post was at 9:10 this morning until “it” posted again at 4:23, and yet “it” was responded to all day.

Come on people, giving her too much attention.

Barred on May 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM

You sure posted like you knew, Cliff Clavin.

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM

really? REALLY?

cuz I wrote this

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

now, if you’re familiar with English context, you’d realize that the phrase ‘from my understanding’ leaves room for the speaker to be wrong and is explicitly stating that it is not a fact

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM

now, if you’re familiar with English context, you’d realize that the phrase ‘from my understanding’ leaves room for the speaker to be wrong and is explicitly stating that it is not a fact

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Me no familar mit de Englis. Butt could you tell me Harvard story more again?

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

I’m pretty sure that most skeet shooters are in a enviable economic bracket.

Cindy Munford on May 18, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Me no familar mit de Englis. Butt could you tell me Harvard story more again?

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM

there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Yes, because only a “bumblehick” could have cursory knowledge of firearms or shooting sports.

Maybe you should stop listening to the mentally-edfective old fool Obunghole picked as his VP and STFU about things you know nothing about. Imbecile.

Walter Sobchak on May 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM

are you not aware of the heat of the moment issues

if a rapist rapes a woman and then leaves, and the woman grabs a gun and goes after him and then shoots him, she can be convicted of murder and self-defense would no longer apply

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Please go read the Texas law. My goodness you’re dense.

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Google doesn’t even know what the f uck you’re saying . Do you?

now, if you’re familiar with English context, you’d realize that the phrase ‘from my understanding’ leaves room for the speaker to be wrong and is explicitly stating that it is not a fact

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM

From my understanding the ground does not get wet when it rains. From my understanding 1+2=4. From my understanding Texas is north of Minnesota.

Using such words does not excuse you from your idiocy.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM

there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

You never took the bar because you don’t know sh!t about the law and never could have passed, and you never practiced because nobody would hire you to represent them in traffic court.

Walter Sobchak on May 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Went to Harvard Law,
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Harvard politely asks that you cease and desist with your lie. Something about sullying their brand.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM

there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

A. Why did you waste your parents’ money on a Harvard Law degree if you weren’t going to take the bar or practice law?

B. You don’t even understand simple legal concepts like the parameters of self-defense. Nobody believes your story about being a law grad from *any* school, T14 or not.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM

*any* school

Good Solid B-Plus on May 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM

High school is in doubt.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

In unrelated news: White House posts photographic evidence that Obama is a bumblehick.

The Schaef on May 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

If you had even the remotest notion of your own stupidity, you’d die of embarrassment.

Wendya on May 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM

now, if you’re familiar with English context, you’d realize that the phrase ‘from my understanding’ leaves room for the speaker to be wrong and is explicitly stating that it is not a fact

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM

What it demonstrates is that you don’t know what you are talking about and, more importantly, too lazy to spend a minute or two on google to educate yourself before making an ass of yourself.

I also find it highly enlightening that the only response you have to any post is one that has nothing to do with your alleged specialty, law.

Why are you afraid to answer all the legal questions?

Tomblvd on May 18, 2013 at 6:18 PM

White House posts photographic evidence that Obama is a bumblehick.

The Schaef on May 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Unicorn? Homosexual? Man? Black man?

CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

If you had even the remotest notion of your own stupidity, you’d die of embarrassment.

Wendya on May 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM

That was a twofer. nonpartisaned is the gift that keeps on giving.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM

why does everyone feed the troll ……
yeah I made a comment too … but enough is enough ….
we should ignore it … maybe it will go away …
at the very least the level of comments will go up.

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:27 PM

why does everyone feed the troll ……
yeah I made a comment too …

CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM

1 perp was wounded, the other two got away.

Too bad it wasn’t a 3 body bag night.

The best way to lower the crime rate is exterminate those committing the crimes.

leereyno on May 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM

why does everyone feed the troll ……
yeah I made a comment too … but enough is enough ….
we should ignore it … maybe it will go away …
at the very least the level of comments will go up.

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Guilty as charged. Asking a lot there mr. tarheel. You want quantity or quality? ;)

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM

While we are on the subject of guns did you know Bill Maher owns two?

Wigglesworth on May 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM

nonpartisan,

Never took the bar? Oh Lordy, did you break your mama’s heart? I can’t imagine investing all the time and money and not taking the bar. Even if you had become disillusioned with law and decided never to practice, didn’t you want the satisfaction of knowing you could have?

Or maybe your ego is healthier than most and doesn’t need that kind of validation. I just find it astonishing!

Nana on May 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I find it astonishing that the Troll can spell “law”.

kingsjester on May 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM

While we are on the subject of guns did you know Bill Maher owns two?

Wigglesworth on May 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Mahrer: “Twelve home invasions in my neighborhood in the past year.” Really Bill, Is your neighborhood all of Los Angeles County?

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Guilty as charged. Asking a lot there mr. tarheel. You want quantity or quality? ;)

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I will take quality … however the owners of the blog probably want quantity
because of ad revenue ….

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:50 PM

I find it astonishing that the Troll can spell “law”.

kingsjester on May 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM

LOL

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM

it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Irrelevant. They already had shown that they were armed. This no longer becomes “burglary” as you quaintly put it. This just ONE of the crimes they committed.

They were armed. They threatened. The homeowner believed that the home invaders (not just burglars) had means and were a clear and present danger. Justified in any reasonable person’s mind.

But then, Liberals aren’t reasonable. We know that based on the past few years as we’ve attempted to engage them. They spout, insult and run away.

ProfShadow on May 18, 2013 at 7:02 PM

there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Hey guys, be nice! You are arguing with Obambutt’s replacement for Holder as the next AG. He/she/it is perfectly qualified for the position, based on the qualifications of Obambutt and HOLDER. NP has the same qualifications as Obambutt. NP would probably be a great improvement.

Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

You’re sorry you’re not a small town in Pennsylvania?

http://www.ejpix.com/photos/location-details.php?location_id=13918862&location=bumblehick-pennsylvania&lat=40.98734&long=-75.13883

OK, fair enough. I’ve always been sort of put out that I’m not Cape Canaveral, FL.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 18, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Stupid. The burglar could make no such ‘technical’ argument.

If a woman is being raped and grabs a brick and hits her rapist over the head, is he innocent of murder if he strangles her in response?

You’ve never sat a single minute in a law class in your life.

Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM

are you not aware of the heat of the moment issues

if a rapist rapes a woman and then leaves, and the woman grabs a gun and goes after him and then shoots him, she can be convicted of murder and self-defense would no longer apply

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Are you incapable of understanding the hypothetical that I posed or do you think changing the subject will absolve you of your ignorance?

Read my hypothetical again, idjit.

Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 8:34 PM

I’m sorry to feed the troll, but I got here late. Must I suffer because I’m old?

Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

You spent a hundred thousand dollars for nothing? Are you one of the “top one-percent”? Or did you “borrow” the money? If so, are you planning on trying to pay it back?

I doubt it. You sound like the classic lib, who is taught that the world will rape you and only GovernmentMan can save you.

I have the feeling you get your learned helplessness from hippy parents.
Or maybe just cold, unfeeling parents. I don’t know which, but a healthy dose of testosterone would do you wonders. Call and see if Obamacare will cover any problems men have (assuming that word applies to you.)

Squiggy on May 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM

OK folkz stand back, I’ve had a stiff martini and am preparing another…I believe I am Nonpartisan’s intellectual equal, let me at him/her/it…..

JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 PM

It would be interesting to know what Nonpartisan’s undergraduate degree was. Womyn’s studies? Black Studies? Organizing fluff? Of course, like that of her mentor and hero Obambutt, it is not really any of our business. We already know that Nonpartisan is more qualified than Obamabutt and Holder.

Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM

My God. You truly are an ignorant half-wit.
soundingboard on May 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was
sorry I’m not a bumblehick
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

What was going on in your mind when you thought that a gun, an inanimate object, could distinguish whether one was shooting skeet or something else? Serious question.

anuts on May 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Urban Dictionary:

bumblehick isn’t defined yet.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:24 PM

I attended Harvard, passed all the classes but did not get my degree…and the Harvard Definition of “Bumblehick” is:
A Mouf-breathin’, sister-lovin’ Gun-fondlin’ Christianist G*D-bag….

Now most of you hayseed hickz haven’t been to Harvard so it’s understandable that our hi-falutin’ language may be a bit puzzling. It’s just best you leave the hard thin’in to us Harvard boyz/girlz, ‘Kay?

JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM

OK folkz stand back, I’ve had a stiff martini and am preparing another…I believe I am Nonpartisan’s intellectual equal, let me at him/her/it…..

JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 PM

You need to bang your head repeatedly against a brick wall to be his intellectual equal.

Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Squiggy on May 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Well said, sir. I wonder how many children he could have fed with the money that was used to get his education…that…he…admits…he’ll…never…use.

Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:38 PM

My guess is that nonpartisan obtained his/her/its degrees by sleeping with the professors.

Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Why we even need a castle doctrine law is beyond me. Proof we have sunk far into the abyss.

JellyToast on May 18, 2013 at 9:42 PM

You need to bang your head repeatedly against a brick wall to be his intellectual equal.

Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Dood/Doodette that’s what the ~150cc of Vodka was supposed to do….

I don’t know what Vermouth does to a person but I can attest to 147cc of Vodka.

JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Why we even need a castle doctrine law is beyond me. Proof we have sunk far into the abyss.

JellyToast on May 18, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Really drunken sinner that I am, I still see the need for society to provide legal limits to the use of force by citizens, or agents of the State, for that matter.

Sure locked in my closet I can use a firearm, but not locked in my closet, someone around my garage, may I shoot..chasing them down the street?

Legal doctrines are good, they provide guidelines for action.

JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Even if you wanted to fire up a debate about when and where it’s justified for a law abiding gun owner to open fire on a bad guy

That would be the very moment that I feel either I or someone on my my property (family, friends, guests, whatever) is threatened.

Othniel on May 19, 2013 at 12:02 AM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

.
That is sooo reminiscent of the sorry-assed song lyrics at the beginning of the movie ‘Aladdin‘.

Got to eat to live ….. got to steal to eat …..

.
If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … can’t find valid handouts in this country, he’s not looking hard enough.

If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … is too proud to ask for valid handouts, … and NOT too proud to steal … then he’s unworthy of his family, and his own very existence.
.
Let’s have a reply to that … libfree’

listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM

If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … can’t find valid handouts in this country, he’s not looking hard enough.

If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … is too proud to ask for valid handouts, … and NOT too proud to steal … then he’s unworthy of his family, and his own very existence.
.
Let’s have a reply to that … libfree’

listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM

.
…… Or nonpartisan, or any other “lib-troll” who believes they’re equal to the intellectual challenge.

listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:46 AM

This is the funniest story I read all week!

By the way trolls, keep it up with the stupid comments … hilarious!
I love the one about how a man, with children no less, needs to burglarize a house using a gun. Brilliant!
Has it ever occur to them that burglars that carry guns are armed robbers by definition?
Perhaps the burglars should take classes at Harvard to learn how to be a dumber class of criminals “desperate men with families to feed”?

kregg on May 19, 2013 at 6:42 AM

it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Check this out, BC. If an armed person is in your home and you are both wielding some fire arm, there is no requirement to allow them, first shot. There are no Marquess of Queensberry rules that apply to gunfire exchanges. More often than not, he or she who fires first, wins.

I do not believe you went to any law school, let alone Harvard Law. As someone above stated, it just doesn’t make sense to spend that kind if money and then abandon the career.

smoothsailing on May 19, 2013 at 7:04 AM

I’m pretty sure that most skeet shooters are in a enviable economic bracket.

Cindy Munford on May 18, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Well Cindy, we learned a new word today. “Bumblehicks” = Landed European Aristocracy.

Huh …?

Jaibones on May 19, 2013 at 7:07 AM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Over dramatize and stereotype much?

You should learn to have at least a passing knowledge of the subject you’re commenting on if you don’t want to come across as an ignorant half-wit.

But that task requires an application of reason and logic. Not a knee-jerk emotional reaction.

soundingboard on May 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM

there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Is that you, Barak?

No wonder you don’t know what’s going on in your own administration …spending too much time on HotAir…

Of course, that is irrelevant…

ProfShadow on May 19, 2013 at 12:31 PM

there, fixed it….

May 19, 2013 12:00 PM Central Time….

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 19, 2013 at 1:01 PM

nonparts gets paid for derailing threads, it gets same pay as the lawn illegals at the big homes of the google bosses….

and it votes as told too

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM

there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit!

The War Planner on May 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM

it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

The invaders had already committed assault by this time. Battery is physical contact, assault is the threat of violence. The homeowner, threatened at gunpoint, forced into a closet… had already been assaulted, even if they didn’t physically touch or fire at him. Being assaulted, in his home, by invaders, qualifies for lethal resistance.

And if your assertion was viable, law enforcement would be rendered completely incapable of responding to any form of robbery or violence since the criminals could always claim assault by officers responding with force or even capturing them. The burden of the law starts with those instigating the conflict, assuming that the responders do not respond with a wildly different level of response. Since these invaders had firearms, firearms would be an appropriate level of response.

Do you know what you just taught me on this thread?

…that a single “101 Introduction to Law” class taken by a Computer Science major at a public college in Ohio is more valuable than a law degree from Harvard. Thank you… You made my day!

dominigan on May 19, 2013 at 6:28 PM

I’m pretty sure that most skeet shooters are in a enviable economic bracket.

Cindy Munford on May 18, 2013 at 5:48 PM

No kidding. When I think of “Sheet Shooting” I think of this:

FANCY!

I don’t think of this:

BUMBLEHICK!

Oh… Wait…

wearyman on May 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Why do so many of these stories always have to come via a UK source?

Why are US newspaper circulation and revenue cratering?

hawksruleva on May 20, 2013 at 11:28 AM

So this guy came out of the closet AND he is a gun owner too?

flstc on May 20, 2013 at 1:19 PM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

They deserve the fruits of their actions. They entered someone’s home with deadly weapons. Everything that family holds dear was at risk. If the burglars died, they deserved it. If more burglars die, fewer will choose home invasion. Let a few scum provide examples that choosing to be scum has dire consequences.

Freelancer on May 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Yes, this thread is a week old, but here is an article today (5/23) that relates to the claim that criminals can use a “self-defense” argument, if they kill someone in a robbery:

From the Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Man-gets-life-for-razor-attack-on-Texas-barber-4542720.php)

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (AP) — A man who claimed self-defense has been sentenced to life in prison for grabbing a razor and slitting the throat of an East Texas barber during a robbery.

Jurors in Nacogdoches (na-kuh-DOH’-chihs) earlier convicted Timothy Blanton of Garrison of aggravated robbery. The attack last July at a barber shop in Nacogdoches also left Chester Pleasant with hand and shoulder wounds.

Blanton testified his girlfriend had received texts from the barber. Blanton told jurors that Pleasant asked him to leave and he was doing so — then Pleasant grabbed him and the men fought.

Prosecutors dispute Blanton’s self-defense testimony and say he intended to steal cash from the barber.

Records show Blanton, who was sentenced Tuesday, has previous convictions for robbery, criminal trespass, carrying a weapon, burglary and evading arrest.

No Truce With Kings on May 23, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3