Video: “I am not your subject”

posted at 1:21 pm on January 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Gun owners have begun speaking out on behalf of their constitutional rights — directly, in some cases, to those who would infringe upon them.  Joshua Boston wrote a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, declaring that “I am not your subject,” which has drawn plenty of attention in the post-Newtown political arena.  Boston appeared on Fox and Friends this morning not just to talk about the letter, but to rebut Feinstein’s response to it:


 

“I am not your subject,” Boston wrote.

“I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.”

Boston explained that he believes once the government takes away assault weapons, it will be a “slippery slope” toward being able to restrict more and more types of firearms.

“Our firearms are important to us and they’re something that we have to have in order to keep what we have as a country going. And this starts us onto a slippery slope. They take (assault weapons) away, next they come for bolt-action guns. And there’s really no reason to register other than they confiscate at a later date in time,” said Boston.

Feinstein assured Boston that her bill would have exceptions for hunting weapons.  The former Marine told Fox’s Steve Doocy that Feinstein doesn’t understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment:

“This idea that the rights of existing gun owners is strictly limited to hunting and sporting purposes is just absurd and has no basis in the Bill of Rights. It’s not what it was for,” said Boston, who argued that throughout history there have been examples of governments confiscating citizens’ guns.

“It’s something we’ve seen happen time and time again in history. With Stalin, it happened in Cambodia and of course, the Third Reich. No one saw that coming until it was too late,” he said.

One key reason for the 2nd Amendment is the natural right to self-defense.  Ironically, Feinstein took full advantage of that right when she needed to do so.  She armed herself in response to threats in 1995, but seems to have an issue with other Americans making that same choice.

Nor is she the only hypocrite on this stage.  John Fund discovered that the newspaper that found it necessary to endanger the entire community by publishing a map of handgun permit holders ended up getting armed guards to protect themselves after receiving heavy criticism for their decision:

Take the Journal News executives who decided to publish the gun map. The newspaper was so inundated with complaints that shortly after Christmas it took extra security precautions and hired security guards — who were armed — to patrol its Rockland County headquarters. The executives reported no incidents of any kind at the building, but they turned over at least two e-mails they found troubling. The local police said they didn’t find the e-mails threatening and concluded that they “did not constitute an offense.” The Journal News chose not to share with its readers the information that it had hired armed security guards. That revelation came from a competing newspaper, the Rockland County Times, which concluded that the Journal News conducts itself according to the double standard: “Guns are good for the goose but not for the gander.”

Indeed.

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 3 4 5 6

Uhhh . . . . . page 5 Bishop?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 1:03 AM

As a person called a troll here last May when I [correctly] pointed out how piss poor a candidate Romney was going to be [no one was touting Romney at either of the 2 MIGOP Conventions] and how he would LOSE because of his being the archetect of 0bamacare, I find myself amused by your discomfiture by mere liberals.

DannoJyd on January 8, 2013 at 12:26 AM

Don’t recognize your name, but I haven’t been too active in the past few months.

I do recall a number of users here doing their best to derail any chance of a republican victory last year. It was disappointing to see people doing that, but perhaps some are proud of their “mission accomplished” efforts.

I often pointed out in comments during that time period, “united we stand, divided we fall.” When 7 – 10 candidates run for one slot on the ticket, there’s going to be a lot of disappointment to go around for everyone.

We witnessed a lot of selfish people here, who insisted that “if my candidate isn’t nominated, then I’m not going to vote or will write his name in.”

It boggles my mind that there are people who are that bitter and selfish. They place themselves before their country. As if any candidate is ever going to deliver utopia and unicorns.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the reality is, that there are two choices on election day and with very rare exception in one’s life, it will almost always be the lesser of two evils.

Romney wasn’t not my first choice, but he is a good man. On election day, my wife and I went to our local precinct and voted for him. Maybe Romney could have won, were there not so many selfish and bitter people who stayed at home on election day, convinced they were making a political “statement.”

Selfish behavior has consequences. Maybe some will wake up and recognize that.

BruthaMan on January 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM

BruthaMan on January 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Excellent comment, sir. Echoes my feelings, stated repeatedly on multiple boards before the election, exactly. As regards Mr. Boston:

Semper Fi, Brother.

98ZJUSMC on January 8, 2013 at 4:24 AM

I guess we are all subjects since Obama is king. Breitbard says Obama is selling off NASA. All the launchpads and runways. The buyers are to be kept a secret.

Could someone freaking tell me how this is possible? How does one freaking man have the power to dismantle our space agency? And congress says absolutely nothing?
Obama thinks he is a freaking King and the freaking screwed up weepy GOP leadership are allowing it!

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/07/NASA-Selling-Off-Launchpads-Runways-A-Kennedy-Center

JellyToast on January 8, 2013 at 6:46 AM

This is all a part of a bigger plan.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM

Don’t recognize your name, but I haven’t been too active in the past few months.

I do recall a number of users here doing their best to derail any chance of a republican victory last year. It was disappointing to see people doing that, but perhaps some are proud of their “mission accomplished” efforts.

I often pointed out in comments during that time period, “united we stand, divided we fall.” When 7 – 10 candidates run for one slot on the ticket, there’s going to be a lot of disappointment to go around for everyone.

We witnessed a lot of selfish people here, who insisted that “if my candidate isn’t nominated, then I’m not going to vote or will write his name in.”

It boggles my mind that there are people who are that bitter and selfish. They place themselves before their country. As if any candidate is ever going to deliver utopia and unicorns.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the reality is, that there are two choices on election day and with very rare exception in one’s life, it will almost always be the lesser of two evils.

Romney wasn’t not my first choice, but he is a good man. On election day, my wife and I went to our local precinct and voted for him. Maybe Romney could have won, were there not so many selfish and bitter people who stayed at home on election day, convinced they were making a political “statement.”

Selfish behavior has consequences. Maybe some will wake up and recognize that.

BruthaMan on January 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM

I was as disappointed as anyone over Romney’s nomination.

But I voted for him anyway.

Romney didn’t lose because of selfish, petulant conservatives. He lost because a) he refused to stand up and FIGHT Obama (which he ADMITTED he wouldn’t do) and thus excite his base and b) Obama’s minions stole votes.

fossten on January 8, 2013 at 7:22 AM

State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer, D-Manilla, says Iowa lawmakers should ban semi-automatic guns and “start taking them” from owners who refuse to surrender any illegal firearms through a buy-back program.

Okay, So much for the need of coffee this morning. Blood pressure went through the roof over this statement.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BUY-BACK PROGRAM. The government did not sell those gun owners their weapons so where is the “buy back?”
The whole term is designed to create the facade that government has the right to dictate what kind, if any, weapons American citizens can possess. This was not the intent of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The explicit right is to bear arms not bear the arms granted to the populace by some nameless federal bureaucrat.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 7:28 AM

Uhhh . . . . . page 5 Bishop?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 1:03 AM

Congratulations or something. ;0

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 7:29 AM

He lost because a) he refused to stand up and FIGHT Obama (which he ADMITTED he wouldn’t do) and thus excite his base and b) Obama’s minions stole votes.

fossten on January 8, 2013 at 7:22 AM

He lost because he didn’t fight back. He stuck to a message of the economy and let the filthy rat-eared bastard run the table on other issues to the point that stupid women actually think thought that Romney wanted to ban all abortions. That Mitt Romney caused the death of that union worker’s wife (two years after Romney left Bain). That he was out-of-touch with the greedy worthless people who support “free stuff” including professional slut Sandra Fluke (double dipper since slut and lawyer are pretty much the same thing).

Romney wasn’t wrong, he was just running the wrong kind of campaign. The kind where the enemy had some kind of integrity instead of a win at all costs mentality that included MSM participation to the point that Candy Crowley put down the bucket of fried chicken long enough to actually tag team attack Romney as “moderator” of the second debate.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Romney wasn’t wrong, he was just running the wrong kind of campaign. The kind where the enemy had some kind of integrity instead of a win at all costs mentality that included MSM participation to the point that Candy Crowley put down the bucket of fried chicken long enough to actually tag team attack Romney as “moderator” of the second debate.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 7:34 AM

ROFL…. coffee everywhere…

PointnClick on January 8, 2013 at 7:41 AM

Romney wasn’t wrong, he was just running the wrong kind of campaign. The kind where the enemy had some kind of integrity instead of a win at all costs mentality that included MSM participation to the point that Candy Crowley put down the bucket of fried chicken long enough to actually tag team attack Romney as “moderator” of the second debate.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Funny quote from some commenter back then…

“Meat Loaf is a terrible moderator…”

PointnClick on January 8, 2013 at 7:48 AM

DISARM……then ENSLAVE.

The tried and true plan of all Ruling class Progressive/Commie dictators.

PappyD61 on January 8, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Congress authorised the First Barbary War on 6 February 1802. It authorised the Second Barbary War on 10 May 1815.

A formal declaration of war is NOT REQUIRED. Again, see the minutes from the Constitutional Convention on 17 August 1789.

Thanks for playing.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Yes, I’ve said that already when I stated that AUMF meet the burden. Congress authored a series of authorized actions, which, as I said, meets the burden. The fact is that CONGRESS intitiates, not the Executive, and that CONGRESS is the one who has the Constitutional authority, not the Executive. The Executive only has the power to respond to attacks or to repel attacks. Neither Timin nor myself said Iraq ’03 or Afghanistan were undeclared.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 8:40 AM

This is going to hurt a little. Just a bit.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Kudos to Mr. Boston.

This is a guy doing what people commenting on Hot Air should be doing.

Sterling Holobyte on January 8, 2013 at 9:50 AM

And I’m sure you know who is by far most likely to be harmed by your gun(s), right?
verbaluce on January 7, 2013 at 10:35 PM

.
The one he points it at.

Fighton03 on January 7, 2013 at 11:50 PM

.
. . . . . And that’s how Conservatives define “gun control”. : )

.
What’d’ya think about that, verbaluce ? !

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:06 AM

Well that’s a great line.
But completely false.
The fact remains that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death or injury by firearm to both the owner of the gun and the residents of the home (family).
I don’t offer this fact so much as an argument for gun control as I do to refute the idea that gun ownership offers the average citizen protection.

Also…Tyranny.
I was speaking specifically about the 2nd amendment there.
But let’s try this angle – are you of the faith that the American populace is currently insulated from the government imposing tyranny upon them through the use of weapons and military forces?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Maybe Romney could have won, were there not so many selfish and bitter people who stayed at home on election day, convinced they were making a political “statement.”

Selfish behavior has consequences. Maybe some will wake up and recognize that.

BruthaMan on January 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Romney lost because he ran a rigid, fearful, toothless, clueless and anal campaign — an unforgivable construct of delusion straight out of the 1950s — against a man and a movement he’s never comprehended and never will comprehend despite having had the incredible advantage of a dry run with Ted Kennedy 20 years earlier in which he had every chance to learn the basics of his enemy. Romney lost because he was completely, impossibly and HOPELESSLY unaware of and unfit to take on the modern Left. He was without a doubt the single most unfit candidate the GOP could have nominated against the Left and the media.

And that’s why he was nominated. Because that’s who the GOP is: a bunch of self-loathing loser butt-boys to the Left and media.

rrpjr on January 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Romney lost because he had less votes than Obama.

I look forward to meeting someone face to face who proudly states that they didn’t vote because they didn’t like Romney.

darlus on January 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I don’t offer this fact so much as an argument for gun control as I do to refute the idea that gun ownership offers the average citizen protection.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Of course you don’t offer it as a fact, because it is a liberal urban myth. But, you knew that and pretended you could insinuate it was a genuine fact anyway.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Romney lost because he ran a rigid, fearful, toothless, clueless and anal campaign

rrpjr on January 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Or because maybe Republican voters chose the unexciting architect of Oromneycare in the primary as their nominee.

I realize that you’re different than other GOP voters – certainly, you worked tirelessly in the primary to elect a better candidate and educate your fellow voters.

But I’ll tell ya – for those folks who knew better and did relatively little in the primary season other than comment on web sites… well, they were no help at all.

beatcanvas on January 8, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Of course you don’t offer it as a fact, because it is a liberal urban myth. But, you knew that and pretended you could insinuate it was a genuine fact anyway.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Are you against math as well?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Well that’s a great line.
But completely false.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

No, that’s exactly how Conservatives people who are for private ownership of guns, define proper gun control.
.

The fact remains that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death or injury by firearm to both the owner of the gun and the residents of the home (family).
I don’t offer this fact so much as an argument for gun control as I do to refute the idea that gun ownership offers the average citizen protection.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I reject the so-called “fact(s)”. That statement displays a total lack of faith in the ability of the average American citizens to be disciplined in the manner with which they use and store their guns.
.

Also…Tyranny.

– are you of the faith that the American populace is currently insulated from the government imposing tyranny upon them through the use of weapons and military forces?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

They are Constitutionally “insulated”. But what’s the value of “the rule of law” with a tyrant? The answer to that is a “constant indefinite”, which includes “the current moment”.

But whether the answer is a definite “yes”, or a definite “no”, what does it change?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Giffords & hubby have plenty of time to go on their anti-gun crusade now that they are both retired with pensions from the taxpayers. Conviently enough, Gabby retired Jan.21, the day after her pension kicked in.

wolly4321 on January 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM

.
Are you against math as well?

verbaluce
on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM

.
No (speaking for myself).

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM

The fact remains that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death or injury by firearm to both the owner of the gun and the residents of the home (family).
I don’t offer this fact so much as an argument for gun control as I do to refute the idea that gun ownership offers the average citizen protection.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I once read on the Internet that owning a car increases the risk of death or injury by car crash?

Using this laughable logic can I then quote every home break-in, rape and/or murder as being preventable by the owner having had a gun, if not discouraged thanks to douchebags such as yourself and your childish gun laws?

ClassicCon on January 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Conviently enough, Gabby retired Jan.21, the day after her pension kicked in.

wolly4321 on January 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM

.
Well, you can’t hold that against her.

What I hold against all of them, is the fact that pensions exist for politicians.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM

The fact remains that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death or injury by firearm to both the owner of the gun and the residents of the home (family).
I don’t offer this fact so much as an argument for gun control as I do to refute the idea that gun ownership offers the average citizen protection.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I reject the so-called “fact(s)”. That statement displays a total lack of faith in the ability of the average American citizens to be disciplined in the manner with which they use and store their guns.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I have no doubt that many are capable of and advocate proper handling and storage.
But that’s not much of a counter argument to the increased level of risk. A more reasoned argument would be that one understands and accepts the risk.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I keep thinking about Australia. It’s an island with strict gun laws. Can’t get the word “vulnerable” out of my head.

darlus on January 8, 2013 at 11:15 AM

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

So what. We all live with risk in our lives. That we value the ability to defend ourselves from cretins like you over the increased risk of owning guns is our right to choose not yours.

chemman on January 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM

The fact remains that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death or injury by firearm to both the owner of the gun and the residents of the home (family).

Except it isn’t a fact. The study you are quoting was debunked loooong ago. Junk science. You either don’t know that or don’t care. From your posting history, I’d say both.
Leftists love to justify their hatred of and infringement upon the rights of others.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM

The fact remains that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death or injury by firearm to both the owner of the gun and the residents of the home (family).

Except it isn’t a fact. The study you are quoting was debunked loooong ago. Junk science.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Wow…you really think that, huh?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Wow…you really think that, huh?

verbaluce

It’s a fact regardless of what either of us think. I saw the study you quoted. You obviously did not.
It doesn’t matter. You just want to deny others their rights is all.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Are you against math as well?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM

ROTFLMAO… As if you had the slightest clue what Math is.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM

.
I have no doubt that many are capable of and advocate proper handling and storage.
But that’s not much of a counter argument to the increased level of risk. A more reasoned argument would be that one understands and accepts the risk.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

.
That’s my fault for assuming too much, I guess.

A citizen who is not “cognisant (cognizant?)” of the “risk” associated with the possession of a firearm, should be institutionallized, or otherwise under constant care by someone who is.
Obviously, a person who is diagnosed as not having the ability to recognize the danger of a firearm, should be kept away from firearms.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Leftists like VBL come to a conclusion first, then try to find things up to support their conclusion. That is why reality rarely agrees with their beliefs.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Except it isn’t a fact. The study you are quoting was debunked loooong ago. Junk science.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM

.
Wow…you really think that, huh?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

.
For verbaluce; Is this your point?

“A family who has a firearm inside the house, is more likely to experience a firearms related accident, than those who do not have one in the house.”

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I don’t offer this fact so much as an argument for gun control as I do to refute the idea that gun ownership offers the average citizen protection.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

This is probably the most ignorant statement you have ever made at this site. There is plenty of research that shows that gun ownership offers that very protect in the 6 to 7 figure range every year depending on how the research was conducted.

Tell that to the average citizen at the Portland mall, the Texas movie theater or the Georgia mother where a citizen with a gun protected themselves and others with a gun in just the past few months.

Personally I’ve had to shoot two Mohave Green rattlesnakes over the last couple of years trying to habituate themselves in my common living spaces. Other species of rattlesnakes will leave (flee) when given an opportunity but the green is extremely aggressive and will follow you to attack. Since I bring my grandchildren out to my ranch to spend time I can’t have poisonous snakes habituating to common living areas as they pose a bigger risk to life and limb than the weapons I own. All of my grandchildren get to go through gun safety from me and the scouting program they are in. They are tested constantly on it. When I am satisfied they can follow good safety they get to learn to shoot starting with a .22 long barrel pistol and 10/22 varmit rifle.

In the area I live in there hasn’t been a published gun accident in the 5 years I’ve been here nor has there been a murder either. There have been B&E’s but they all happen when no one is at home. The thieves know that pretty much every homeowner have guns and won’t take the risk of being filled full of holes from a hot B&E.

You don’t want a gun don’t have one but that doesn’t give you the right to interfere at any level with my right to choose to have one of the type and make that I deem suitable for all levels of defense.

chemman on January 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Don’t mess with the 2nd:

The right to own a gun can can be very powerful whether a gun is possessed or is not.

With regard to that fool newspaper we all know about … Here’s a what ifer:
To make things personal, how about those who do not own guns and want to limit gun rights, consider the thought of posting their names and addresses. Today, they have the deterrence factor of the bad guy not knowing whether they really have a gun in their home or not.
Today, they are actually hiding behind their right to own a gun. Now take away that deterrence.

darlus on January 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM

You don’t want a gun don’t have one but that doesn’t give you the right to interfere at any level with my right to choose to have one of the type and make that I deem suitable for all levels of defense.

chemman on January 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I’m not against you owning a gun.
I support reasonable restrictions and guidelines. Perhaps you feel there’s no such thing, but good to hear you’re thoughtfully careful around the grandchildren.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

A citizen who is not “cognisant (cognizant?)” of the “risk” associated with the possession of a firearm, should be institutionallized, or otherwise under constant care by someone who is.
Obviously, a person who is diagnosed as not having the ability to recognize the danger of a firearm, should be kept away from firearms.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM\

And who’s doing the diagnosing and/or qualifying?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM

I support reasonable restrictions and guidelines. Perhaps you feel there’s no such thing, but good to hear you’re thoughtfully careful around the grandchildren.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

You can stick your “reasonable restrictions and guidelines” right up your ass. Who gets to decide what constitutes “reasonable restrictions and guidelines”, bet you won’t let me make that decision, which is exactly why you can stick them up your ass.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM

chemman on January 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM

.
I’m not against you owning a gun.
I support reasonable restrictions and guidelines. Perhaps you feel there’s no such thing, but good to hear you’re thoughtfully careful around the grandchildren.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

.
Reposting (repasting?):

The Second Amendment is FIRST, about self defense against a Tyranical government. Common criminals come after that.
Then dangerous/nuisance animals … and so on.

Citizens should be allowed to possess and use the same weaponry as the Civil Authorities. Anything less than that, means your ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is compromised. Period.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 8:40 AM

.
Oh, look … it’s a bully.

You never answered the question I asked yesterday in this same thread.

You remember … it was about your response to ALT saying she had just heard her mother was likely to die this week …

(ALT got a call just a few minutes later that her mother had just died.)

She’s a 1000 effing miles away. Not much I can do.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2013 at 2:07 PM

.
You can get off the internet if you think you’re in danger of being “screwed with”. Nah, you just tried to be exploitative in playing some sympathy-guilt card.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 2:14 PM

.
How is it possible to hate yourself so much that you would make a statement like that in a public forum?

You need to take your truly diseased mind off the internet and seek immediate psychiatric counseling.

PolAgnostic on January 7, 2013 at 3:23 PM

PolAgnostic on January 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM

listens2glenn, you are talking past VBL. VBL says merely having a firearm is more of a risk to the owner and their family, and IS NOT of any protective value.

There was a study done by a gun control reaseracher done back in the early to mid-90′s who tried to claim that people that owned a gun and their family were many more times to be killed with those guns than protected. It was pretty absurd and a blatant case of “fixing” the data to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

IIRC he first claimed 64x more likely, then kept revising it down until it was 4x. He also eliminated from his “study” any cases where a firearms owner used their gun(s) to successfully defend themself. It goes on and on. This is typical of those like VBL se who wish to deprive others of their rights simply because they don’t want them to have them.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.

You trust your fellow man to properly manage a 2000-5000+ pound car driving towards you at high speed on normal streets separated by 10 inches of empty space. That is a much bigger risk to you on a daily occurrence than owning guns are to the families that have them.

chemman on January 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Buyback update from Tucson:

Some guy just walked up with 2 rifles sans serial #’s. They refused to take them and handed them back.

So two untraceable weapons are back on the street.

Smart power!! (event advertised as no questions asked, lol)

wolly4321 on January 8, 2013 at 11:53 AM

For verbaluce; Is this your point?

“A family who has a firearm inside the house, is more likely to experience a firearms related accident, than those who do not have one in the house.”

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Well, I know where you’re going with this…and it’s a fair counter-point.
But I think you need to include ‘incident’ with accident there.
The poster above has a problem with snakes and having a suitable gun around to shoot them makes sense to me. And maybe he likes to hunt too.
I’m more concerned by those that feel the bigger and more guns they have…the safer they are…from tyranny or govt ‘jack booted thugs’ and the lot.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:53 AM

That statement displays a total lack of faith in the ability of the average American citizens

Ironic, considering the trash talking about American citizens being stupid, moochers etc., that takes place here on a daily basis.

lostmotherland on January 8, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Selfish behavior has consequences. Maybe some will wake up and recognize that.

BruthaMan on January 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM

I agree.
Most people will not admit this though.

Look at what Obama is doing, with the spending, the appointments, (and the inevitable SCOTUS appointments)…the gun grab, etc, yet there are people who will still rationalize their 3rd party vote or sitting it out, by trying to convince themselves that Romney would be handling things and making decisions exactly like Obama..no difference between the two at all. Nope. None at all.
THEY are the reason we have whats going on now and what will be shoved down our throats. This is a fact they will not face.

Mimzey on January 8, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I’m not against you owning a gun.
…“reasonable restrictions and guidelines”

Too bad for you we know what that really means. Stop lying already.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:55 AM

A citizen who is not “cognisant (cognizant?)” of the “risk” associated with the possession of a firearm, should be institutionallized, or otherwise under constant care by someone who is.
Obviously, a person who is diagnosed as not having the ability to recognize the danger of a firearm, should be kept away from firearms.

listens2glenn
on January 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM

.
And who’s doing the diagnosing and/or qualifying?

verbaluce
on January 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM

.
Family or legal guardians, first.

Do you lack faith in the ability of average Americans to discern and descipher such a condition, before it’s “too late?”

Like, maybe in the case of the Newtown,CT killer.?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM

You can stick your “reasonable restrictions and guidelines” right up your ass. Who gets to decide what constitutes “reasonable restrictions and guidelines”, bet you won’t let me make that decision, which is exactly why you can stick them up your ass.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Well to be honest, no…I would not want you making these decisions.
You’re skills seem more suited for invective and name calling….and thoughts about my ass.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM

PolAgnostic- thanks for pointing that out. You’re right,, it was the epitome of crass.

wolly4321 on January 8, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Verbaluce, Swalker is more qualified than you to make such decisions, so you may want to think about that.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Family or legal guardians, first.

Do you lack faith in the ability of average Americans to discern and descipher such a condition, before it’s “too late?”

Like, maybe in the case of the Newtown,CT killer.?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM

You’re asking me if I lack faith in the family of the Newtown killer to diagnose and manage access to weapons?
Um…yes, I do. Very much.
As I’m sure you do.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM

I have no doubt that many are capable of and advocate proper handling and storage.
But that’s not much of a counter argument to the increased level of risk. A more reasoned argument would be that one understands and accepts the risk.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

This retard is peddling a lie and doing so deliberately. The garbage study that genned up that talking point was grossly manipulated, predicated on a crime-ridden blue ghetto, included criminal acts by others / home invasions, and ultimately engages in the wort sort of “study” fraud – asserting that correlation is causation and that a carefully distortive sample set is somehow representative of the whole. Pretty much like all the Globull Warming studies.

Somehow 300M+ guns live in 100M+ households without incident. The second biggest city in IL had ZERO murders. Somehow with gun ownership and CCW permits soaring across the nation, firearms injury and deaths are DOWN.

Verbaluce like all the rest of the anti-gun crowd is a goddamned liar.

rayra on January 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM

OT:

But not so much, it will take hard work to avoid these commie thugs who over run the Constitution, Congress etal. So work hard.

A leak of the IPCC AR5 report is down loadable now at

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

Huge amount of data and comments from the inside the U.N. CO2 fraud working group. The IPCC allowed WWF and Greenpeace to be part of the inside working operations.

Anthony Watts and others are seeking help to make this data base searchable.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I agree with your position on the 2nd amendment. I was posting on a meme on Reason about a year ago and got a prog to agree that I could own any weapon I could carry in my shirt pocket. I thanked him for allowing me to carry chemical and biological weapons in a test tube and explained that I could step out of my house and isolate the Anthrax bacillus and begin weaponizing it and my leisure. The brain matter splattered all over the meme was a sight to behold.

chemman on January 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM

BruthaMan on January 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Amen to that Brutha…

RalphyBoy on January 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM

You can stick your “reasonable restrictions and guidelines” right up your ass. Who gets to decide what constitutes “reasonable restrictions and guidelines”, bet you won’t let me make that decision, which is exactly why you can stick them up your ass.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Well to be honest, no…I would not want you making these decisions.
You’re skills seem more suited for invective and name calling….and thoughts about my ass.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Don’t step on SWalker. He’s a patriot and therefore “responsible.” Although clearly not “responsible.”

lostmotherland on January 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM

This retard is peddling a lie and doing so deliberately. The garbage study that genned up that talking point was grossly manipulated, predicated on a crime-ridden blue ghetto, included criminal acts by others / home invasions, and ultimately engages in the wort sort of “study” fraud – asserting that correlation is causation and that a carefully distortive sample set is somehow representative of the whole. Pretty much like all the Globull Warming studies.

Somehow 300M+ guns live in 100M+ households without incident. The second biggest city in IL had ZERO murders. Somehow with gun ownership and CCW permits soaring across the nation, firearms injury and deaths are DOWN.

Verbaluce like all the rest of the anti-gun crowd is a goddamned liar.

rayra

Exactly. I have seen what they call reasonable. You’d be lucky to have a musket.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM

This retard is peddling a lie and doing so deliberately.

rayra on January 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM

If I could convince you of nothing else, any chance you’d consider removing “retard” from your insulting names list?
You’d manage fine without it, I’m sure.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM

ps

Verbs Out Of Balance:

Long term your pissing aginst the winds of truth.

It will end up with you getting a test taste of your own piss.

Good On Ya!

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The fact remains that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death or injury by firearm to both the owner of the gun and the residents of the home (family).
I don’t offer this fact so much as an argument for gun control as I do to refute the idea that gun ownership offers the average citizen protection.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM


Whatever happened to troll-cot?

If you folks are going to respond to the troll’s stupidity, at least take the time the debunk their supposed facts. This one was busted long ago.

*”In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.”[12] [13]

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as “case-control” studies) “fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. … Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized. “[15]

2) The study’s results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees’ honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

.
This three county study has been so busted even the MSM gave up on using it because the more it was examined on an objective basis the more obvious it became the study had been set up from the start to yield the desired quotes.

PolAgnostic on January 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Don’t step on SWalker. He’s a patriot and therefore “responsible.” Although clearly not “responsible.”

lostmotherland, feel free to move to Cuba, Venezuela, or some other worker’s paradise as it’s clear it’s what you want.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Don’t step on SWalker. He’s a patriot and therefore “responsible.” Although clearly not “responsible.”

lostmotherland on January 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM

If he feels ‘stepped on’ when responded to…than he needs to work on that. Or avoid posting and inviting comments.
But I think you’re overly concerned. I’m sure he’ll be fine.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:04 PM

I’m more concerned by those that feel the bigger and more guns they have…the safer they are…from tyranny or govt ‘jack booted thugs’ and the lot.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:53 AM

.
I’m more concerned by those persons trying to “disolve” U.S. sovereignty, and drag us (against our will) into the WCPA.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Verbs Out Of Balance:

Long term your pissing aginst the winds of truth.

It will end up with you getting a test taste of your own piss.

Good On Ya!

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Lordy.
I understand how it gets personal here sometimes, but this shows how it sometimes it gets pretty weird too.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM

This three county study has been so busted even the MSM gave up on using it because the more it was examined on an objective basis the more obvious it became the study had been set up from the start to yield the desired quotes.

PolAgnostic

I explained how it was bogus a few posts ago.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 12:09 PM

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Don’t step on SWalker. He’s a patriot and therefore “responsible.” Although clearly not “responsible.”

lostmotherland on January 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Responsible enough for the United States Government to trust me with the production of DARPA “Black Projects”. Responsible enough for the DOE to trust me inside a Breeder Nuclear Reactor and to verify the assembly of Nuclear weapons. So I’m guessing that yea, that makes me one hell of a lot more Responsible than either you or verbaluce.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM

I’m more concerned by those persons trying to “disolve” U.S. sovereignty, and drag us (against our will) into the WCPA.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM

I really don’t think you should worry about them so much.
Certainly don’t let it keep you up at night.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM

But that was then, right?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:13 PM

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Considering that you want to interfere with our right to choose there is a good reason to suspect that you and others of your persuasion would welcome tyranny as a method of control.

chemman on January 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM

But that was then, right?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Your favorite toy as a toddler was a plastic bag your parents tied around your neck, wasn’t it.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM

But that was then, right?

verbaluce

So according to you he has no right to be offended by someone who wants to tell him what rights he should and should not have.

Hard Right on January 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM

.
You’re asking me if I lack faith in the family of the Newtown killer to diagnose and manage access to weapons?
Um…yes, I do. Very much.
As I’m sure you do.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM

.
Nope, I don’t.
But I’m going to have to rely on someone else here, to provide the links.

Mom did recognize in plenty of time that her son was “out of control”.
The State of Connecticut delayed in responding to her request, for her son’s committal.
That was public information, but now I can’t ( e x p l e t i v e ) find the links to it.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM

.
I really don’t think you should worry about them so much.
Certainly don’t let it keep you up at night.

verbaluce
on January 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM

.
Define “worry”.

I don’t lose sleep over it.

I do recognize that it is this current White House Administration’s agenda to disolve the U.S.

But as long as the common American citizen has the power (semi-auto, civilian versions of military “light” arms) to “intimidate” them, we’re fine.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:27 PM

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Want to discuss the “increased levels of risk” to those compelled into defenselessness by gun restrictions and gun-free zones in cities and towns run by retardedly incompetent Progressives whose policies have led to more not fewer deaths?

You couldn’t care less about “increased levels of risk.” You like victims. Victims make good clients to the State.

rrpjr on January 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM
.

Don’t step on SWalker. He’s a patriot and therefore “responsible.” Although clearly not “responsible.”

lostmotherland on January 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM

.
Responsible enough for the United States Government to trust me with the production of DARPA “Black Projects”. Responsible enough for the DOE to trust me inside a Breeder Nuclear Reactor and to verify the assembly of Nuclear weapons. So I’m guessing that yea, that makes me one hell of a lot more Responsible than either you or verbaluce.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM

.
Ouch.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:33 PM

There is a major piece of cognitive dissonance in all the “Ban the guns” and “Register the guns & fingerprint/photo all gun owners” tripebeing peddled bu the gun control trolls …

WHO is going to make all of this happen?

The facist Democrat dominated City of Chicago has been outlawing guns right, left, up and down since I was a child. How successful have their efforts been?

Ask the gun control trolls to consider a thought exercise (You don’t want to push for an answer because then they will either lie or cite some silly Police Chiefs Association): How many close friends have you had who were LEO’s? Have you ever asked a rank and file LEO if they would be willing to “seize the guns”?

(Hint for the gun control trolls – In major cities, there are neighborhoods where police will not patrol because the risk of being randomly attacked are too high.)

One other thought because I’ve learned “You can’t fix stupid” and gun control trolls have an overwhelming amount of STUPID in them.

HOW many “gun seizers” will be required to seize the guns of over 100 million gun owners?

(Hint for the gun control trolls – What is standard operating procedure regarding the number of officers deployed to resolve a barricaded gunman situation?)

It is inappropriate to point out the obvious to the gun control trolls,

“If you try to seize the guns, you are going to start a civil war.”

They have no basis of understanding with which to process this obvious fact. They worship government as their god, submit to the will of their god and view defiance of their god as impossible – so “somehow” their god will make this happen.

Please troll-cot the gun control trolls. You can’t fix stupid.

PolAgnostic on January 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Your favorite toy as a toddler was a plastic bag your parents tied around your neck, wasn’t it.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM

No. It was the awesome G.I. Joe set. A box that opened to reveal to interior of his tricked out plane.
Very cool.
You would LOVE it.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Mom did recognize in plenty of time that her son was “out of control”.
The State of Connecticut delayed in responding to her request, for her son’s committal.
That was public information, but now I can’t ( e x p l e t i v e ) find the links to it.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM

You are making a very weak point. Recognizing he was ‘out of control’ she offered and allowed him access to firearms? That’s your example of having faith in families to manage this stuff?
I think you need to back track a bit here….

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM

I do recognize that it is this current White House Administration’s agenda to disolve the U.S.

But as long as the common American citizen has the power (semi-auto, civilian versions of military “light” arms) to “intimidate” them, we’re fine.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:27 PM

If indeed you really do believe you’re under this threat, I can’t see how you feel you’re safe from it because you have guns.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Talk about weak points. Man o man!

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM

If Guns are NOT a deterrent…….then why do Politicians surround themselves with guards with guns?

If the Ruling class really believes people should be disarmed except to hunt……….THEN DISARM YOUR SECURITY DETAILS.

Talk is cheap politicians. Actions speak louder.

Let’s make the Ruling class a deal.

When THEY DISARM…..we will.

PappyD61 on January 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Here’s the thing. You don’t trust me, so why do you expect me to trust you. You don’t trust me to own a full auto. Yet I should trust you’re judgment on my weapon selection over mine. Remember I don’t trust you. Lol!

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The left truly does not get it, any of it.

A friend I spoke to today, liberal friend, doesn’t care for his taxes, his healthcare, going up in cost. He doesn’t mind the slide towards gun banning. All I could say on the $ front was, you voted for Big Gov, you must pay the bill for it. I asked. “What did you think was going to happen?” To which his response was, “Freaking Republicans, Damned Insurance Company’s.” On the gun front, I advised him tread lightly. Silence.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM

No. It was the awesome G.I. Joe set. A box that opened to reveal to interior of his tricked out plane.
Very cool.
You would LOVE it.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:45 PM

A) I profoundly doubt that

B) Sorry, never played with dolls or action figures. (Well, unless you consider building 4 foot tall robots playing with dolls).

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM

.
You are making a very weak point. Recognizing he was ‘out of control’ she offered and allowed him access to firearms? That’s your example of having faith in families to manage this stuff?
I think you need to back track a bit here….

verbaluce
on January 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM

.
She offered him nothing, after she determined his “altered behavior”.

It can be said that she made a mistake keeping that handgun unlocked, and within reach of her bed her after discerning his condition.
Assuming that’s what happened.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM

What ever you do, don’t ever trust me with a gallon of gasoline. Lol! I might burn your freaking house down. What a bunch of asshattery you put on display here daily. Lol!

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM

What ever you do, don’t ever trust me with a gallon of gasoline. Lol! I might burn your freaking house down. What a bunch of ass hat tery you put on display here daily. Lol!

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM

The left truly does not get it, any of it.

A friend I spoke to today…
Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM

No, they don’t. It’s not a remediable condition. I have the same conversations. And these are educated people — all post-graduate, some doctorates. To them, it’s “the systemic dysfunction of capitalism” or some such drivel. As to guns, a few months ago one dismissed the need for guns anywhere in society, and equally dismissed idea that government had any interest in controlling guns. What was all the fuss about, he said? Of course, he and many others like him think Obama is a corporate tool and not radical ENOUGH.

rrpjr on January 8, 2013 at 1:13 PM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 12:27 PM

.
If indeed you really do believe you’re under this threat, I can’t see how you feel you’re safe from it because you have guns.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:52 PM

.
Here is your comment “altered” as I believe it to apply to our current situation to be.

“If indeed you really do believe you’re we’re under this threat, I can’t see how you feel you’re we’re safe(r) from it because you we have guns.”

.
I don’t see how you can feel we’re not safer (not “safe”) from a tyrannical government by being in possession of “semi-auto, civilian versions of military “light” arms” and the ammunition to feed those arms.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Are you against math as well?

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Like the math that unarmed British citizens experience violent crimes 3.5 times ours, or that Australian violent crimes jumped 50% in the five years after implementing strict gun control laws?

By the way, I don’t just throw out unsubstantiated BULLSH*T like you do, I’ve actually studied the FBI crime statistics, and the Australian crime statistics.

Here’s an easy link for you to start educating yourself…

Choose Your Own Crime Stats

dominigan on January 8, 2013 at 1:31 PM

You are making a very weak point. Recognizing he was ‘out of control’ she offered and allowed him access to firearms? That’s your example of having faith in families to manage this stuff?
I think you need to back track a bit here….

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Well, using your logic… I think if your idea is using a stupid sign to protect students from a maniac, I think you need to back track a bit here…

dominigan on January 8, 2013 at 1:34 PM

If I could convince you of nothing else, any chance you’d consider removing “retard” from your insulting names list?
You’d manage fine without it, I’m sure.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM

And screw your retarded thought / speech police garbage, too.

rayra on January 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I’m more concerned by those that feel the bigger and more guns they have…the safer they are…from tyranny or govt ‘jack booted thugs’ and the lot.

verbaluce on January 8, 2013 at 11:53 AM

You aren’t really this ignorant of history, are you? You must have played hooky from high-school history class…

dominigan on January 8, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Here’s an easy link for you to start educating yourself…

Choose Your Own Crime Stats

dominigan on January 8, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Not a bad start, but as has been said many many times maff is hard. A couple of glaring issues with what he pointed out. Changes in population,i.e. population growth. The population went up significantly at the same time the violent crime and murder rates went down. Not factored into his assessment.

The profound difference in population between the UK and America, America has 5 times the population of the UK.

But like I said, good start.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Oh, for crying out loud . . . . . 500!

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6