There is no doubt the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting shocked this nation. While everyone asks why this happened, some are asking not only how this happened but how to prevent it from happening again. In the midst of the fervor, Sen. Feinstein is pushing a stringent gun control policy that has definitive lines dividing pro and anti-gun owners. Joshua Boston's letter of repute to the Senator has gained much attention. He is among many Americans who feel their rights are being suppressed.
A game of musical chairs after the death of Sen. Inouye could put Feinstein in the Chairman seat of the Judiciary Committee. This would ease the passing of the renewed assault weapons ban in the Senate. This proposed ban will prohibit the sales of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. It requires the establishment of a national gun registry. All firearm registrants must undergo a background check, provide photo and fingerprints, and obtain a local law enforcement recommendation sign off.
Boston is an 8-year veteran having served in Afghanistan. His letter reads:
"I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one."
"I am not your subject. 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."
"I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public."
This letter has gone viral; while it was the words of one, it is symbolic of the sentiments of many. Will civil disobedience be the word of the day if this ban is passed in its entirety? Primarily, the Bill of Rights was established to put limits on the Federal government. It was to unite the opposing Federalist and Anti-Federalist. Two focus groups of the American public find themselves on opposite sides of gun control regulation granting the Federal government a little more far-reaching powers.
The debate continues between pro-gun ownership and anti-gun ownership and the Second Amendment. People with an unhealthy state of mind have used assault weapons to cause casualty. The mere presence of the weapon did not inspire the attack. Timothy McVeigh killed many adults and children indiscriminately without an assault weapon. Perhaps the decision to kill is committed to first, and then the means to carry it out is decided upon. The unavailability of an assault weapon will not stop the next attack, it will just shift their energies to obtaining a different equally deadly device.
Photo source: BAY ISMOYO/AFP/Getty Images
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 124
Unfortunately, that sort of thing isn't uncommon among gun fetishists, teabaggers, conspiracy theorists, survivalists, preppers, etc. But hey, good for him for contacting a member of Congress and letting them know his position on the issue. Other Americans should do the same. And if new laws are passed that Mr. Boston is unwilling to obey, he should prepare to deal with the possible consequences of his refusal.
As for your assertion that the hinterlands have no problems with guns, I disagree. I have a lot of family and friends who live in the hinterlands, and I know that while guns are a much bigger problem in cities, they're a problem in the hinterlands, too. People in the hinterlands use guns to kill each other. People in the hinterlands use guns to kill themselves. People in the hinterlands kill themselves and others with guns accidentally. That's not some media-created fantasy; it's reality.
And it's still very, very high when compared with most other developed countries. Countries that have more restrictions on guns and gun ownership, and that have far fewer guns per capita.
I'll check with the people I know who live in the hinterlands, Ron, but I'm pretty sure they haven't nominated you as their spokesperson.
"Read "The Better Angels of Our Nature", our perception of danger is easily distorted by massive exploitation of extremely rare events."
A great book. I started it, but have to admit that I didn't finish it. Over 80 people die from a gunshot wound in the US every day. Does that qualify as an "extremely rare event"?
I'm willing to accept the idea that the average American may have an unrealistic notion about how likely she is to be fatally shot. But if so, I'd say that many people who own guns for personal and home protection have equally unrealistic perceptions of danger and their of ability to protect themselves and their families with their gun(s).
I don't know which societies you're referring to, or what statistics you're using to base your assertion that they've had increasing in violent crimes. But I know that in Australia, gun-related homicides and suicides have dropped since tougher restrictions on guns and gun ownership were introduced. And I know that violent crime statistics include assault (and threatening to assault someone) and robbery (even unarmed robbery). I know that by far, the biggest increase in violent crime in Australia since the changes in gun legislation has been in the category of assault.
I don't know about you, Ron, but I'll take a smack in the mouth (or threatened with a smack in the mouth) over getting fatally shot any way of the week.
If you or anybody else has suggestions for laws, regulations, standards, practices, etc. that can get doctors and nurses to wash their hands more, I'm all for it. I've read that Cedars-Sinai has had some success using screensavers, posters, etc. so maybe that's something that could be done nation-wide.
"If it was rational, we wouldn't just be talking about guns here, is what I mean."
I'm happy to talk about other things and not just guns, Ron. But I also don't think it's rational to talk about everything but guns.
While the percentage of homicides using a knife may have gone up since guns were more heavily regulated, the total number of homicides has gone down. Comparing 1995 (the year before new gun control legislation was implemented) and 2010 (latest stats I've seen) crime stats, homicides using a knife have increased less (90 to 101 = +11) than homicides using a gun have decreased (58 to 34 = -24).
"In case you were wondering, over five times the murders in this country are accomplished with a knife, than an assault weapon every year."
I agree that there is over-emphasis on regulating assault weapons. Much better to reduce the numbers of all guns, and in particular handguns if the goal is to reduce the number of gun deaths.
"Lol, yes Wil, let's talk about washing hands, now that I brought it up, but without me bringing it up, where was your willingness to have a national referendum on hand washing?"
Given the topic of this particular article, I'd have to say that my willingness to discuss hand washing was probably somewhere other than here.
But if there's an article about some boneheaded doctor who is also a dirty-hands fetishist writing letters about how he will not wash his hands and that he'll refuse to obey any laws or regulations that try to force him to do so, I'd appreciate being pointed to it.
Yes, I did. And I didn't get my info from "the Brady Campaign", but from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
"You won't get this from the Brady Campaign, and no wonder."
I don't know what info the Brady Campaign puts out, but I can't imagine they'd have a problem with comparing Britain's homicide rate of 1.4 to the US's rate of 4.8. Or Britain's burglary rate of 523 to the US rate of 716. Or Britain's robbery rate of 164 to the US rate of 133. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that most American's would, like myself, prefer to be robbed than killed. Of course I'd much prefer that neither occur, and since the rates where I live were 0.09 for robbery and 0.00 for homicide last year, I'm pretty damned confident that it won't. Thanks, in part, to extremely limited access to firearms.
I think the picture in the Daily Mail article, and the mention of "loutish behavior" is a good example of how so many discussions of violent crime fail to acknowledge the fact that, in both the US and Australia (and I suspect the same is true in the UK), homicide victims are more likely to be killed by somebody they know (spouse/partner, family member, or friend) than by a stranger.
I try to keep in mind, when I mentally compare my experiences here and in the US, that violent crime rates had just peaked when I left in 1995. And that I'd spent the late 80s and early 90s living in Houston, just when homicide rates there went sky-high (I remember it was over 600 in 1991, then it dropped after I moved away). I know that the situation is a lot better now than it was when I lived there. Yet I have quite a few friends and family (even some of the ones in the hinterland) who insist that they need to be armed to the teeth in order to protect themselves and their families. Talk about unrealistic perceptions of danger, and unfortunately I don't think recommending Pinker's book would do much to change their minds.
"That figure would be around a forty two percent rise."
What figure? A 42% rise in what?
"Oh, by the way, suicides actually went up for a few years after the ban, and it was only after a concerted effort by public health to address that increase that they started going down again."
The new gun control legislation went into effect in 1996, but the buy-back wasn't concluded until 1997. Suicides peaked at 2150 in 1998 (firearm suicides dropped from 369 in '96 to 218 in '98, but hanging suicides rose from 672 to 1035 in the same two years), dropped to 1624 in 2006, and have risen back to 1816 in 2010. There are fewer suicides now than there were in 1995. There are fewer suicides using a firearm than there were in 1995. And suicide rates didn't start going down again because they'd been steadily going up before the peak in '98.
I'm not asking for more gun control in Australia. I think what they've done is pretty remarkable (I don't take any credit for being a part of it, because I wasn't a citizen at the time). I'd like to see the US do something similar.
"I think, though, your comments about your friends and relatives is a bit funny, when you have been herded to this conflict, by an event that you or a loved one has less chances of being involved in than being hit by lightening."
I wasn't "herded" into this discussion by the Sandy Hook massacre or any other mass shooting. I understand that while they often capture a lot of public (and media) attention, they represent a very small fraction of all gun-related deaths (or even gun-related homicides) in the US. I'm more interested in trying to deal with the 80+ gun deaths that happen every day, even when there aren't any mass shootings.
As for my friends and family, I'm not worried that they're going to be killed in a mass shooting. In most cases, I'm not particularly worried that their lives are at serious risk due to any kind of violent crime. But quite a few of them seem to be excessively worried about it.
"I will never consider it your right to tell me what I can do, in the way of banning my rights to own a gun, when my constitution made it an unalienable right, whatever the hell yours says."
I'm an American citizen, Ron. My constitution says the same thing yours does, because it's the same one. And my view is that 2nd Amendment rights aren't absolute, and should be balanced with the government's compelling interest in preventing crime. Some restrictions on guns and gun ownership is constitutional. If those restrictions can reduce the numbers of firearms and the numbers of firearm-related violence, then I'm all for them. If other, non-legislative measures can accomplish the same thing, then they may well be worth looking into as well.
" Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime."
Original source instapundint.com
The whole idea behind gun control is that it is supposed to make citizens safer and that is the way it is heavily promoted.
Both England and Australia prove that gun bans do not make the people safer.
No worries, Ron. I understand where you're coming from, and I know that reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I felt similarly for a long time, until I moved to Australia and experienced for myself what it's like to live in a place where gun crime, and homicide in general, is relatively rare. It's pretty awesome. When they changed the gun laws and did the big buy-back, I was pretty skeptical. But I've seen the results, and I think the changes they made were good ones.
When I lived in Texas, I had gun. In Houston, I often carried a concealed handgun. I'm glad I never used them. I'm glad that none of the other people who were also carrying concealed handguns ever used one on me, either. I like it better now, living where I don't feel any need to carry a gun for protection, and pretty much nobody else does, either.
Whether any new legislation gets passed or not, I hope the number of gun-related deaths in the US continues to drop. I think the whole damned country (cities, hinterland, and all the spaces in between) would be a better place if fewer Americans killed (or tried to kill) each other.
You have a good one, too. :)
He killed his mother with a .22 Marlin rifle. At the school, he was armed with two handguns (a Sig Sauer 9 mm and a Glock 10mm) and a Bushmaster XM15 rifle. He left a shotgun in the trunk of his car. He used the Bushmaster to kill all his victims, then used one of the handguns (as far as I know, police haven't said which one) to kill himself.
"Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed..."
I don't know where you think those statistics came from, but there's no such thing as an Australian Bureau of Criminology.
"Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research..."
Yeah, there's no Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, either. There's a New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, but their statistics are for the state of New South Wales, not for the whole country. Here's some stats from a recent report (again, this is just for NSW):And this was true despite the fact that there was a a series of shootings involving members of the Hell's Angels and the Nomads going on in Sydney (the capital of, and largest city in, NSW) in 2011-2012. Australians, including Sydneysiders, are safer now than they were in 1995.
"Original source instapundint.com"
Honestly, how hard is it to take a few minutes to verify that the info you're copying and pasting isn't a bunch of crap? And to make sure you're posting URLs to legitimate sites and not to a scam site like the one above?
Total fail, Dan. Again.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Dan seems to have a bad habit of copying and pasting things into comments without taking the time to find out if the information provided is correct or accurate. I don't know if the numbers he gave are real, or what organization they may or may not have come from. What I do know is that the Australian Institute of Criminology website provides links to lots of interesting research, statistics, etc. that support the points I've been trying to make. If they also have info that supports arguments against the effectiveness of gun control legislation in Australia, I'd like to see it. Dan certainly hasn't even come close to providing it.
Dan, if it's an AIC report you're talking about, I'm not surprised that links to a decade-old report don't work. I often get broken links when trying to access older documents on their website. Searching for them by name works, but if I'm following a broken link from a source that doesn't provide the document's title (rare, but it happens), then I'm screwed.
In the year 2002–2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[26] In 1997–1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[27] Knives are used up to three times as often as firearms in robberies.[28] The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides, of which many involved the use of hunting rifles.[25]
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [6], from 1985–2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, and firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[29] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[30] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline."
Char, that's a right-wing think-tank that, at least in this particular case, doesn't appear to have done much thinking.
I don't know where they're copying this info from, but they've also failed to catch the error about the non-existent Australian Bureau of Criminology, or the fact that the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research is a state organization that provides stats and research for NSW, not for the whole country.
Look at that first statistic: "In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)..."
Then consider what the actual, very real Australian Institute of Criminology said about the homicide rates and firearm homicides in 2006:
From Homicide in Australia: 2005-2006 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report, "During 2005–06, there were 283 incidents of homicide, resulting in 301 victims and committed by 336 offenders....The use of firearms has again declined, with 14 percent of homicides committed with a firearm (n=42)."
And from Homicide in Australia 2006-2007: National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report: "Australia wide, 260 incidents of homicide occurred
in the year, taking 266 victims and involving 296 offenders....The 2006–07 data also re?ected the general trend toward a lower proportion of homicides using firearms (11%) and a higher proportion using knives and other sharp instruments (44%), respectively the lowest and highest proportions to date since monitoring began and in contrast to a maximum proportion by firearm of 29% in 1993 and a minimum by knife and other sharp instrument of 30% in 2000."
Looks like Dan and the right-wing think-tank are both spreading bogus info.
Ok, I just found the deleted sections in the Wikipedia revisions. Based on the discussion, they were removed, at least in part, because of the inclusion of the link to the info-deficient right-wing think-tank and a broken link to the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. But the other links, to the AIC, appear to lead to legit, if slightly out-of-date, info. Thanks for clearing that up.
When I see that the drop in firearms-related deaths started earlier in the state of Victoria (which started tightening up its gun laws earlier than other states) than in the rest of Australia, it seems clear to me that reducing the numbers of guns and gun owners reduces the number of gun-related deaths (both homicides and suicides).
I think gun control in Australia has had a positive effect, and not a "disturbing rise in violent crime." Australia has, generally speaking, had tighter regulations on guns and gun ownership for nearly a century, and have had significantly lower homicide rates than countries like the US.
The levels of violent crime in Australia don't disturb me. Sure, I'd like for them to be lower, but my experience since moving here has been remarkable. Most of the increase in violent crime statistics is due to an increase in assaults. And part of that increase is due to an increase in the percentage of actual assaults that are reported to police. And part of that increase is due to a higher percentage of domestic violence (particularly violence against women and children). So while it would be better if such instances of assault didn't occur at all, it's good that it's being reported more when it does occur. Honestly, I have never felt safer.
And as I mentioned earlier, I've got family and friends who feel the same way you do. However unlikely the situation may be, they prefer to arm themselves, just in case. Some of them take it to extremes. A couple of years ago I had a discussion with my cousin about all the guns he had for "home protection", and even though I probably shouldn't have been, I was surprised at how essential he felt them to be, while he completely refused to consider the value of other options, like security lights, alarms/alarm system, watch/guard dog, etc. I honestly can't understand that kind of thinking. And the whole reason the subject had come up was because one of his teen-aged kids had put a bullet hole in a wall after accidentally firing it while screwing around and/or cleaning it. In the end, family or not, I just wrote the dude off as a fetishist who can't be reasoned with.
After reading all of your POV in your posted comments to this article, I noted that you continuously insist that "They" have intentions to eventually take away everyone's firearms. In your postings, you alluded to many statistics related to violence in America and other countries. But, nowhere in any of your postings, did you even once provide any documentation to backup your suspicions and assertions that there exist a conspiracy to confiscate all privately owned firearms. In fact, you never presented any evidence whatsoever, by which you have come to the conclusion that any individual nor the government have such plans or intentions.
You can argue your POV as long as you wish, but you must understand, that if you want others to believe what you are stating, then you must have and present more proof of your accusations, than just your personal suspicions and fears.
Evidentiary proof, Compiled facts and Researchable documentation are what you must present in support of your case. You may honestly believe what you state to be true, but without at least one of those items to bolster your POV, few readers will take your accusations seriously and there will be some, like me, who challenge your comments in open debate.
This is where you accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat,
You need to reread my comment, nowhere did I accuse you of such, I only suggested that you had presented no facts to backup your charges.
Frankenstein surrender your weapons, and your security. I don't really think you need them who would want you.
{I think he has more of a right to speak his mind then Frankenstein}
For the record, I have not read any comments posted to this article which question the man's right to have and/or to openly express his opinion on the subject of Sen. Feinstine's, yet to be proposed Bill of Legislation on gun control, nor do I suspect that any GNP member will. Regardless of what you, in your cynical mentality choose to believe, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Libertarians and Independents, hold the U.S. Constitution and it's Articles and Amendments just as dear to our hearts as any conservative American does.
With that said, I wish to point out that you are technically wrong in the part of your statement which I have paraphrased above. Inasmuch as Sen. Feinstine was elected to speak for her district's constituents and the citizens of America as a whole, in all matters which are or become, issues and/or concerns of the American populace. Therefore, she has a sworn duty by the oath of her office, the delegated right to speak on the subject for the people, whereas, Mr. Boston only has the right to speak for himself.
That is one of the major problems with the mental reasoning of conservatives, most tend to believe that when speaking for themselves, they are actually speaking for everyone else as well. Which is not only wrong headed, but exceptionally presumptuous to say the least.
I'm fairly certain he followed all the rules he was told to follow in regard to the gun... which is part of the outrage all American citizens should feel over his detention in a Mexican jail. Check it out; if the facts bear out, our citizen did things correctly and Mexico ... well Mexico behaved like Mexico.
Miami-Dade Marine
Scott--"IMO, this is just childish ranting by a mentally immature person acting like a spoiled brat. A man who is seeking public attention and recognition for his service in the military and no one seems to give a damn. (which is true)"
You hit the nail on the head--several times.
But, my respect for the huge sacrifice he made in service to his country is a separate issue, & does not require me to agree with his opinion, or to show respect for the complete & utter disrespect he displayed toward a U.S. Senator, & the laws of the government he swore to defend.
Second, there's no way on God's green Earth any president would dare attempt to overturn the Constitution by "executive order"--nevermind the fact that it probably isn't even within his power to do so. I try to apply common sense to ridiculous rumors before I run around screaming that the sky is falling.
Third, I wasn't lecturing anyone, I was responding to Ron's very civil comment. He was right to question my lack of acknowledgement, & I have no problem admitting it when I need to clarify something I've said. I should have been a little nicer, but I didn't "lecture" anyone.
Your comment is flatly confrontational, & contains nothing of substance to respond to.
nevermind the fact that it probably isn't even within his power to do so.
As you suspected, the POTUS can issue an Executive Order if he deems it necessary to accomplish a necessary task which the Congress has either failed to do or refuses to do themselves. However, no president can issue an order of any kind which would overturn nor suspercede the articles of the U.S. Constitution.
Several Democrat Congressmen and Senators have suggested that if the conservative led House of Representatives in Congress refuses to deal with the national debt by March 3rd, then the president should invoke his right of office, to issue an Executive Order to pay the national debt, using a section of the 14th Constitutional Amendment as the legal basis for issuing the Exec. Order.
Wheras it has been suggested in a comment posted to this article that the POTUS has said that he will issue an Executive Order to overturn the 2nd Amendment. A statement which has never been made by President Obama, inasmuch, as it is not within the power of the presidency and would be an illegal act. Further, neither houses of Congress would standby and allow such to take place.
I thank you for your supporting comment, albeit, I am sincerely sorry that some members found that support to be disrespectful to Mr. Boston.
In my opinion, to serve one's country through active military service is noble for some and patriotic for all who do so. I believe that it is also an honor to be allowed to serve one's country. Therefore, such service should not be used in a dishonorable manner for one's own personal gain and/or recognition by others.
Inasmuch, no such service should elevate a person above others simply because of that service. If it did, 95% of all opinions held by Americans in general would be less valuable than those opinions held by the few who have served our country. Especially since the main reason for serving your country is to protect the freedom and {equal} rights of all American citizens.
For me, you are only denigrating a person if what you say is knowingly disingenuous or said in animosity or hate. My comment was neither. I posted exactly what I believe to be the truth per the substance of Mr. Boston's published letter. Therefore, I do not feel that I am guilty of denigrating Mr. Boston in anyway, shape nor form by my comment. I am only guilty of seeing him for what he truly is and what he was trying to do by using the leverage of his military service to gain symphathy.
Further, IMO, he has no expressed nor implied right to use his prior military service as an excuse and a personal platform from which to disengenuously chastise Senator Feinstine for doing what she was elected to do. It was and still is, my honest opinion from reading Mr. Boston's letter, that he was using the letter and his military service to express his childish emotional plea for attention and nothing more.
Exactly, Scott. I may not have the intimate knowledge of politics many of you do, but I understand our system of checks & balances. The president can & should have the power to move in the event of a stalemate. Suggesting that he has dictatorial power to direct the country in any direction he pleases is a gross misstatement. Thanks for clarifying.
I hope you didn't feel the need to defend your statement because of me. Ron was right in that our servicemen deserve recognition for their sacrifice. As I said, that's a separate issue.
I think having served does give the right to be heard, it doesn't add more weight to an opinion. Recognition should be given as a matter of respect, but when that recognition is elicited, or demanded, & especially when it's used as leverage & excuse to be disrespectful, or for personal gain it sickens me as much as it does you. Those who serve with honor do so unselfishly, although they definitely have the right to expect full support from this country in any way needed.
You're right, being unable to distinguish one act from the other, showing utter deference for service while ignoring transgression entirely--allowing one to excuse the other--is not realistic, & displays an immaturity in the thinking process.
However, I don't think Ron was saying that. I think he was simply pointing out that sometimes we get so caught up in reacting to the things we read that we forget to look at both sides of the coin--remembering to acknowledge one while responding truthfully to the other.
Thanks for softening what you said, I appreciate it. Let's assume the President did threaten to nullify the 2nd Amendment {which I highly doubt}. It was probably something like, "You know, I would love to just bypass these idiots & do what I think is right."
You've never been fed up when dealing with people who disagree with you? You've never resorted to saying something ridiculous, & implausible, knowing that you would never do it? I don't know where you "read" that, but it was obviously started by someone with an agenda to stir the pot by sensationalizing the statement, or flatly fabricating it.
You weren't just making a comment or asking where I stand. You were trying to ignite a conversation over a silly, irrelevant, mindless rumor. Pretending that I'm stonewalling you is just a tactic to give credibility to pointless fear-mongering.
Many of your friends love to use the term "sheeple." There's nothing more sheep-like than obediently, mindlessly perpetuating statements that have absolutely no basis in common sense or fact. I won't help you with that, either by jumping on the band wagon or giving you a platform to argue validity. Now I've answered you twice, in full.
I rarely defend what I write with those who challenge my posted POV. First, because I am a person who generally reseaches a subject before I post a comment and therefore I don't feel obligated to explain my position. Second, because I only write what I honestly believe to be the truth. Third, because to play ping pong with certain other members usually results in getting someones feeling hurt and/or ends in a writing confrontation to no positive point for either party or the reading membership. Fifth, it is usually someone with an agenda who challenges what I write and not a member seeking honest exchange of information. Sixth, because many responders only do so to antagonize, not to hold a respectful debate. None of which is the reasons I post my comments.
I joined this group for several reasons, the number one and foremost being, as a helpful means of keeping my brain working, per my personal physician's instructions. Two, that I might learn what I have yet to learn from others who are more acquainted with and/or educated on the various subjects than myself. Third, because, I have been involved in both local, state and federal politics for most of my adult life and it's my way of continuing that connection. Fourth, because it affords me with the opportunity to read other members POV as well as holding conversations, exchanging ideas and discussing my POV with responsible people like you.
Happy New Year
Happy New Year to you, too!
The Loganville mother said she didn’t initially answer when someone knocked on her door around 1 p.m. Friday. When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
He then dialed 911 and his 37-year-old wife gathered their 9-year-old twins and hid them in a crawlspace inside the home.
According to the report, the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings.
When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.
“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The woman fled to a neighbor’s home with her children. The woman and her two children were not injured.
The injured intruder stumbled out of the home and attempted to flee in his car. However, he crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway, according to WSB-TV.
The suspect was arrested at the scene. He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.
The victim’s husband said he’s proud of his wife.
“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner,” Donnie Herman told WSB-TV.
Submitted for consideration even though it goes against the the libtard narrative that all guns are evil and must be confiscated.
{Libtards and criminals prefer an unarmed target set}
Although you posted only a oneline comment, it was sufficiently written to raise my ire and as such, I feel compelled to respond.
For you to suggest that members of the Democrat Party would join with and/or allow criminals to use the American people as human targets, is both arrogantly ignorant as well as asinine to the 10th degree.
As usual, in your extremist ideological reasoning, you have ignorantly grouped all people who are not a conservative into a single category. A trait which demonstrates your inability to comprehend the fact, that people may possess both a personal as well as a political ideology. Thereby, they retain individualistic thoughts and reasoning on different issues.
To leave no doubt: I am a law abiding American senior citizen, who Loves both my country and it's people. Ergo, I highly resent your inexcusable insinuation, that as a progressive, I feel otherwise. Iinasmuch, I also respect the established laws of our nation and the government which enacts those laws. Therefore, under the Constitution by which all Americans live, I have just as much right to express my support for the enactment of better gun control laws, as you have to make a public ass of yourself, as you do so often, here on GNP.
Further, I am a Democrat with a progressive political ideology, which does not mean, as you suggest, that I am against the ownership of firearms by the general public. In fact, I personally own multiple firearms myself and believe that all law abiding citizens have the right to own firearms for both personal protection, hunting and sport shooting. Albeit, I also believe in gun control laws which are both justly written to protect the rights of gun owners, as well as realisticly written for the safety and welfare of the general public.
I do not believe that you possess the personal attributes which would allow you to offer an apology to all those you meant to offend by your thoughtless asinine statement. Therefore, I will neither ask for one nor will I expect one to be forthcoming.
Please explain why most mass murders occur in "Gun free zones" like schools, malls and restaurants.
Explain why conservatives, gun owners, TEA party members can be berated, insulted and isolated with gleeful acceptance by the supposedly open-minded and tolerant liberals.
'Nuff said.
Endlessly tangling with unrepentant libtards has become overly frustrating for my life. I have bigger fish to fry.