My Photo

May 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Conservatives’ Use of ‘Nanny State’ | Main | The Senate’s Amnesty Bill (updated 10apr13) »

04 May 2013



George, I understand the rationale behind your views on this subject. You present them well. But, I have a question brought about by your poll reference which says 29% of Americans believe an armed revolution might be necessary, in the next "few" years, to protect our liberties. Which of the following scenarios would you prefer:

The situation: Black Americans, who suffered horribly under government sanctioned slavery, and who continued to suffer long after the 13th Amendment was ratified, decided in, say, 1960, that enough was enough.

a) every black adult buys a gun (rifles and handguns with the largest clips....Par Force) and decides on Jan 1st, 1961 that they will initiate armed revolution. This would start in the South and proceed to the North. It will hopefully be very short, but will continue until all levels of government decree an end to segregation and all other forms of racial injustice. A refusal to serve blacks starts the shooting in Selma, Alabama, resulting in 12 dead, mainly policemen, and the county courthouse is set on fire. A phone call to the Selma, Alabama press declares the rebellion is to end racial injustice and will cease when justice is enforced. Immediately, many whites, especially the significant racist faction (KKK), grab their guns and begin shooting any and all blacks on sight. Uncontrolled urban warfare develops. Word spreads like wildfire throughout the South and the Selma situation is repeated in thousands of towns, large and small. National news goes on full alert and reports that in just the first 24 hours estimates stand at 16,000 dead and tens of thousands injured. Three days later, when National Guard troops are directed to "shoot on sight" any civilian carrying a weapon, the violence finally stops. The death toll is 85,000 dead and 250,000 wounded. Congress takes up the situation as a national emergency and passes legislation that makes any laws condoning segregation or racial injustice illegal and punishable.

b) Martin Luther King Jr. leads a campaign of non-violence to end segregation and racial injustice. Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Both scenarios achieve the original objective.... and, of course, you prefer b), as I do.



The thing I fear your cited poll results further is sort of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" mindset of the hard right. Gandhi used non-violence effectively against the British and Americans can do the same. Now, realize that non-violent protest against some perceived 2nd Amendment "infringement" should occur even as Americans still have their guns! It should be the first option. Armed rebellion should always be a last resort. If federal authorities arrest Sheriff Royal and his deputies because they're not enforcing new gun laws, and 6 federal agents get shot by "patriots", you have just opened Pandora's box. Civilians who oppose the NRA and their sympathizers may now view them as a real threat to public order. Next thing you know someone places a bomb in an NRA meeting and then the long guns and ammo hoards come out. Then, the local office of the ATF gets shot up and we're off to the races. You never know where "armed rebellion" will lead. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to get background checks at gun shows, so Adam Lanza can't wander in off the street and buy one, and the NRA thinks I'm wasting my time. If that's the case, let's do away with them at gun shops so they don't waste their time. Why even try to have common sense targeted controls that deal with specific situations? After seeing my first episode of Guntucky, nothing surprises me anymore.
What's your view on this?


Fuzz, you have quite an imagination. Why not stick more closely to realty than spinning bizarre fantasy attacks on the NRA, which, last time I checked, had a higher approval rate in the US than President Obama does.

BTW, we have background checks for all gun show transactions in California. How's it working?

Nationwide, everyone in the business of selling firearms, and every licensed collector, have background checks now for every firearm they sell or trade at a gun show or anywhere else. The Feds right now can decide people who regularly sell at gun shows without a Federal Firearms License are in violation of Federal Law requiring a license if you are in the business of selling, and the "gun show loophole closing" was more about shutting down intrafamily transfers and short term loans to friends for sporting purposes.

Bill Tozer

There is a gun shooting in Chicago every 6 hours. Not murder, gun shooting every 6 hours 24/7. And they have very obsessively strict gun control laws. Must be something in the projects culture. In Alaska drive by shootings are rare because every body is armed and armed to the teeth and knows how to shoot back.

Gun control means using both hands. I need about 15 AK-47s, 2 or 3 17 inch guns, a couple of Uzis, some M1s, some grenades and maybe some good old sticks of dynamite to protect myself and family from being raped and murdered. How much firepower do you need to protect and defend your loved ones against rapists and crazy eyed murderers? OK, bear spray works, but dead mo-fos do not become repeat offenders.

Our Founding Fathers who loved life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness lived under a tyrannic government. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" Jefferson uttered.

Even General Grant knew all about the priority of owning a gun which is why he let the defeated Rebels take their guns with them and go back to civilian life. It wasn't for hunting bear but just one of those necessities of life like air and water.

Every single American must be in the ready to fight back against a tyrannical government. It is the Constitution's own special call to arms to protect our own special Constitution.

George Rebane

Fuzz 1123pm - That's quite a narrative, and plausible scenarios of revolt are countless. So I really don't know what you are now asking me beyond what I wrote.

The cited poll gives a picture of the national mood long denied by gun controllers of all hues. It is what it is, and should not come as too much of a surprise to those who have been paying attention.

But make no mistake about the efforts of the feds to intimidate local sheriffs who are the last elected and constitutionally legitimate leaders of broad-based local resistance. If they do come for Sheriff Royal (or any other county sheriff), the world will change.


Gregory, the problem with background checks in their current state is shown in this video:

If you read the exchange I had with George toward the end of his 21 April blog, you'll see why he came to this conclusion:

“Fuzz 723pm - Points well made. I don't see a way around background checks to stop the problems you outlined. My druthers are to have a generalized background check that certifies you as a sane, responsible, etc citizen. That documentation can be kept by a central clearinghouse that has the means to handle and adjudicate appeals in a timely manner. Getting a clean 'bill of health' there confirms you for purchasing all kinds of products and services that may ingeniously be turned against society by bad guys.
In that situation a gun dealer need only confirm your identity (the technology for this exists) and check with the clearinghouse as to your qualifications as a buyer. A code can be attached to the seller's record that verifies that a clean background check was obtained with the sale of the product. Should the product turn up as having been illegally used, the seller is indemnified, and the buyer identified. The disposition of the product by the buyer to others is already covered under existing laws. Not perfect, but a starting point. Other thoughts?”

As long as you have a situation where ignoring background checks is passively condoned, there's no point in having them. As I said to George, if you have them for everything except private sales between “family and friends”, you'll have the biggest jump in “friendship” in the history of the US. “Meet Ralph, he's been my lifelong friend for the last 45 minutes.” Sorting all this out is a real problem, but as you can see, Adam Lanza could walk in to that gun show and 20 minutes later walk out with an untraceable gun. Could he go out on "the street" and buy one for $50?....probably, if he was in the right neighborhood. I just want to make it harder for him without denying law abiding citizens the right to purchase a firearm.

Bill, I enjoy shooting sports as much as anyone and have no problem with self-defense weapons. My post was mainly about choosing a form of protest.

Account Deleted

Watch the situation in California where they just passed a bill to fund a special push to remove firearms from folks that aren't supposed to have them. They seem to already know who these folks are, but don't have the man power to perform a statewide sweep. Probably very few of the folks in question will do any jail time for being caught with unauthorized firearms as the jails are already overcrowded and they are now releasing vicious criminals that haven't finished their terms. So they take away the guns from these folks that most likely obtained them without any background check whatever and 2 hours later, they have gone out and obtained another firearm through the same method they obtained the original that was just confiscated. But background checks for law-abiding citizens will continue to be the way forward towards the non-violent nirvana the left seek. This isn't about gun violence and gun control, so facts and reason have no place in the arguments set forth by the left. Their mantra is constantly repeating "to keep kids safe'. Instead of determining what actually kills most young children, they just go off on certain types of firearms and the supposed lack of background checks.

Bill Tozer

We are doing our very best to keep kids safe. No more mean spirited and aggressive dodge ball. Windex is now a toxic chemical and spanking is a crime. What more can we do?

Russ Steele

This appears to be a valid argument:

" As with most lefty causes, the key driver is a craving for moral superiority, usually driven by oikophobia" [ fear of the familiar ]

Bill Tozer

The idea of an armed insurrection or rebellion is a issue that must be carefully weighed. It is no small matter.

We have recourse and civil disobedience first. I for one will not be shooting back at our US soldiers, US Marshalls, ATF Agents, FBI, National Guard kids, local Sheriffs, and Highway Patrol officers. If a rebellion was to occur, one must consider who the US Government would send to squash the protests. I, if ever involved in an armed rebellion, would be shooting back at my fellow Americans, some of them my buddies' adult boys and girls. I would be fighting for my homeland, but not against foreign forces.

They sent tanks into Wacko and snipers to Ruby Ridge. They surrounded those areas and blocked off all access to and from. A siege if you will. The outcome is never pretty.

It appears that this new department of our Government called Homeland Security is flying under the radar amassing more weaponry than needed. Their resources are becoming mind boggling.

Why Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion bullets is beyond me. Even if they had 100,000 agents and only purchased a billion bullets, that would come out to a a boat load of rounds per each personnel working in Homeland Security, many of whom sit behind a desk. 10,000 rounds per agent is enough to fight a long time in combat. But, they ain't our military.

It is not a wild paranoid stretch of the imagination to point out the possibility if we suffer another terrorist attack along the lines of 911, there are those in government waiting to pounce upon the opportunity to suspend the Constitution, in the name of homeland security of course. My, what pleasant thoughts this fine morning.

Joe Koyote

The whole armed revolution thing I find quite amusing. First, how does a rogue government come to power anyway? My guess is that somewhere along the line an election takes place. Question: how does an elected government go rogue? Do they become rogue after being elected or are they rogues because they do not represent the ideals and values of a 29% minority who say they will start an armed revolution because they don’t like the government’s policies? Is the government the rogues or are the revolutionaries the rogues? Were the Black Panthers and the Weathermen revolutionaries or terrorists? They disagreed with government policies and armed themselves.

And just who are those 29% who would start a bloodbath because they don’t like single payer health care or some other “liberal” cause? We live in a republic and have elections where the majority has a legislative advantage (filibusters and other rules of order to prevent rapid change aside). What the 29% seem to be saying is that if they don’t like what the majority rule and rules of law prescribe they will revolt and thereby force their minority viewpoint onto the majority, hardly democratic. And what of the 71% (most of whom I would bet are unarmed) who don’t see armed violence as the solution? Will they then be subject to the tyranny of the armed? Will they have to arm themselves for protection? What if the majority doesn’t’ like the policies of the violent minority who take over? Will they have to start a counter-revolution?

The whole “armed revolt against a rogue government” scenario is insane and to give it any credence at all is irresponsible politicking especially when the only support for such notions consists of 16th century quotes from long dead people who lived in an entirely different world from the one in which we now find ourselves. If you can’t work within the system to make changes, then perhaps the changes you seek do not have enough popular support and should be abandoned for lack of cause. Rather than pulling the trigger on their neighbors who may disagree, the 29% should do us all a favor and consider inserting the barrel into their mouths before firing. America, love it or leave it.

Account Deleted

An armed populace is the best assurance against a govt deciding to suspend our Constitution. The left refuses to recognise that the most common form of self defence using a fire arm is simply possessing the fire arm. The criminal decides to behave himself and go elsewhere. There is no need to even brandish or aim the fire arm. Further - an unarmed populace is far more dependant on the govt for security and is more compliant in the amount of taxes it is willing to give the govt. Social unrest and rioting to the point of citizens needing to protect themselves with their own fire arms has already occurred more than once in this state in my lifetime. There is every chance it will happen again. A fire arm is a tool and a resource. Citizens with more personal resources are again, less reliant on the govt and less willing to cede liberty. Another fallacy the left advances is the spectre of a few 'pot bellied old farts' going up against a well trained and armed military. Ain't gonna happen, my friend. Look at the numbers. What is the size of our standing army vs the many more millions of gun owners. A lot of the 'old farts' would actually be battle-hardened ex military sickened about the loss of American blood in the middle east coming home to find their own govt acting like the folks they fought against over seas. Thousands of our current military would sooner fire on their own commanders than fire on the home town Tea Party patriots. I'm not so fearful of Obama as I am of fellow Americans that naively believe that they are safer if they disarm themselves and trust the govt to 'do the right thing' into perpetuity.


JK, I think you're filling in too many blanks with your fantasy caricatures of anti-Progressives, illustrated by "And just who are those 29% who would start a bloodbath because they don’t like single payer health care or some other “liberal” cause?"

I read that poll not as that 29% wanting to start a bloodbath, but rather they think the country is on a path to breakdown and there may well be shooting before it's over. Look to Los Angeles and the Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?" riots to see what happens when people get pissed and the government retreats.

What would have happened in Boston recently if there'd been resistance to the extra-Constitutional warrant-less door to door search by paramilitary police armed with military, rather than military style, weapons, and the shut down (martial law for all intents and purposes) for the day of a major metropolitan area? What will happen if healthcare breaks down and people's loved ones start dying of treatable illnesses because no care is available?

Personally, as long as the people retain the right to own and carry guns I doubt the government would dare go rogue. It's more likely they'd retreat like the LAPD.

George Rebane

JoeK 835am - Joe, I'm afraid you again led with your reading skills. The 29% are people who believe that "In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.", and are not therefore people who are willing to "start a bloodbath".

The unarmed have always been "subject to the tyranny of the armed". BTW, the quotes are from the 18th and 19th centuries - the Great Experiment is not as old as you think.

And I might point out to the general reader that Mr Koyote in his 835am played the described leftwing role to perfection.

Account Deleted

"If you can’t work within the system to make changes, then perhaps the changes you seek do not have enough popular support and should be abandoned for lack of cause."

Funny how that only applies to certain issues. I notice that Oblabber is going to keep trying to place further restrictions on gun ownership, even though his own party won't give him the support he wanted. I guess more propaganda will need to take place in the news media to 'nudge' the populace into wanting to give up their Constitutional rights.

Bill Tozer

Gentlemen, I feel a wee bit nervous even discussing a hypothetical scenario such as a Constitutional overthrow of our government. After reading Ben E's post on another thread about the kid who committed a state felony by mentioning rap lyrics and such, well...I sure that I might have triggered the big computer in Virginia and maybe now on some watch list, lol.

This is not to say I am important in the least. Just a working stiff, a very small fry in the grand scheme of things. A gnat if you will. But I see civil liberties being eroded and this erosion of civil liberties is an issue that makes Ben E and myself soul mates.

Freedom of speech comes with a heavy price nowadays. Add to that the expected right of privacy. Perhaps freedom to associate with whom I please and the right to move freely about my country unrestricted MAY be the next steps. When our military training manuals and Homeland Security documents site Catholics and Protestant Christians as potential terrorists, then something is smelling foul and it ain't old farts shooting bottles off the fence post on the back forty.

As a son of a cop I realize that the cops have to sort out the good guys from the bad guys quickly. Sure its a subjective judgement call. That is when they come in contact with someone. But, to take the broad brush and paint Catholics (which I am not one) and "Evangelicals" as potential terrorists should alarm even the most liberal member of the ACLU.

I could be mistaken, but I don't recall hordes of Catholics taking to the streets and burning buildings and rioting and dozens injured after Sunday Mass. Maybe it goes on every day and I am just an ignorant boob. I can't even think of cases where Holy Rollers or Lutherans, or Calvinists or Bible Thumpers or Baptists or Methodists or Black Churches, or even Snake Oil Faith Healing congregations took to the streets after an inspiring service and shot up the town or blew themselves and other up or burned tires with dozens of cops injured. But these are potential terrorists???

Seems to me that our government is labeling people as potential terrorists cause they believe the saying "render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's" as a threat. If you don't make government your Higher Power of choice, then you are a potential terrorist I suppose. That would make Martin Luther King Jr. a terrorist, not a simple commie like J. Edgar Hoover believed.

Guess I am finally coming around to the idea that if you a self reliant and put God and country ahead of government then you are a threat to the libs in power and the progressive way of thinking.

Paul Emery

Since 9/11 over 700,000 Americans have died as a result of gun related incidents. During that same time less than 100 have died as a result of Islamic terrorism within our borders. We have a greater chance to die from a furniture related accident than Islamic terrorism yet we spend billions to combat terrorism and a pittance to study or control gun violence in addition to normal police budgets. Can anyone explain this discrepancy to me?

George Rebane

PaulE 1242pm - Extremely simple explanation. Islamic terrorism unchecked can change our quality of life and bring down the world as we know it. Put most simply, annual gun deaths don't and have never threatened our QoL - all such deaths are not created equal. It is a matter of overall utility, and gun confiscation is recognized by most as an item in the leftwing's social agenda.

To those for whom this is hard to understand, consider that in the same interval we have had almost 3,000,000 Americans die from preventable medical 'mistakes' (including malpractice, but not counting abortions). Nobody (except those losing relatives) gives a damn about those millions because we consider it just the ongoing cost of getting healthcare - i.e. its an acceptable part of our overall social utility function. And so is widespread gun ownership, and the deaths it entails. Here we are especially unconcerned about criminal minorities killing each other which makes up the lion's share of annual homicides. Capice?

Paul Emery


You keep talking about gun confiscation as an item in the "left wing" social agenda but my friends of that ilk don't believe in that at all. Am I running with the wrong crowd here or are you getting sweaty looking for a devil that doesn't exist?


"Since 9/11 over 700,000 Americans have died as a result of gun related incidents"

Paul, how would *you* prioritize how you personally would rank Federal program spending in these three categories:
1) Have the government spend my money to protect me from foreign acts of war and other terrors;

2) Have the government spend my money to protect me from the criminal acts of other Americans;

3) Have the government spend my money to protect me from myself.

All suicides (most of those 'gun related incidents' of yours) and many drug casualties (by gun because of the trade, or directly by substance abuse) are category 3, and virtually none of the career criminals rampant in 2) are ever going to be effected by criminalizing possession of firearms.

In short, the Feds spend on 1) and not 3 because they're supposed to. That's their job, with powers enumerated by the Constitution, with most of 2) being state and local.

George Rebane

PaulE 226pm - You may be running with a crowd that does not pay attention to the quarter from which literally all legislation has come that has constructively reduced and removed the use of the spectrum of firearms formerly available for uses also now proscribed. Wider sources of reading materials may be a curative here. (BTW, I will not do that readily available research for you.)

Paul Emery

So George, what gun laws currently in effect would you like to see removed and would that be a Federal mandate or is that discretion best left to the States? Also, what are your views on convicted felons being allowed to possess guns?

Paul Emery


There are many things that could be done to cut down on gun related deaths including awareness and education of accidental deaths. An average of 500 children are killed each year from gun accidents. Here's more on that. Perhaps legislation assigning responsibility for gun security to owners would be worth considering.

More on this topic later

"This week, a toddler fatally shot himself after finding a gun in his parent's car. According to Jackson, Miss., authorities, the 3-year-old was sitting in the car at a gas station when he found the gun in the front seat and shot himself in the face. Police questioned the boy's parents, but no charges have been filed.

But these aren't freak accidents. More than 500 children die annually from accidental gunshots. Some shoot themselves, while others kill friends or siblings after discovering a gun.

Here are more scary stats: Americans own 200 million firearms, and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun. Last year, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns."

Read more:


An average of 500 children are killed each year from gun accidents.

CDC would like a word with you about that.

Or someone who has already input the numbers for you.

Last year, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns."

For an overall accident rate of......0.03 percent. This number of course doesn't take into account those "children", males from 15 - 19 who are killed while "doin bidness". So the percentage is even better than shown.

In reality Paul, guns are a far smaller threat to child safety than many of the things the we, as a society, seem to deal with daily.

George Rebane

PaulE 349pm - Complementing fish's 429pm, in the aggregate of accidental deaths in the nation, gun deaths are negligible (to all except topically oriented issues activist liberals), and NOTHING should be done to reduce those deaths that also reduces the ready availability of firearms to the law abiding public.

Regarding existing laws on guns; let the several states make their own laws to the extent that they don't violate the 2nd Amendment (no constructive gun confiscation). And all ex-felons are not created equal. As a society, if we believe in rehabilitation through our justice system, then there are large classes of ex-felons who should have their rights restored fully.

George Rebane

Please see the 7may13 update for some comparative stats on how the US compares to the UK where there is an essentially total gun ban.


"Here's more on that. Perhaps legislation assigning responsibility for gun security to owners would be worth considering." - Paul

Perhaps you don't have a bloody clue what the current law is. Yes, that would seem to be the case.

Yes, stats can be very scary if you just take them at face value when served up by someone grinding the usual axes; thanks to fish for saving me the trouble to dig out citations. Something like 20 kids drown in buckets each year, too, and I suspect you just leave the damn things laying around.

Bill Tozer

more details:

seems the more one moves away from the teenage years, the less likely one will commit suicide.

If a distraught father comes home and blows away his wife and children, is it the gun's fault? This is happening more and more frequently in the news. Think the father is to blame in this scenario.. Mothers usually drown their kids in the bathtub or a lake lately. Is water to be blamed?


Since 9/11 over 700,000 Americans have died as a result of gun related incidents. During that same time less than 100 have died as a result of Islamic terrorism within our borders. We have a greater chance to die from a furniture related accident than Islamic terrorism yet we spend billions to combat terrorism and a pittance to study or control gun violence in addition to normal police budgets. Can anyone explain this discrepancy to me?

There's no discrepancy. A majority of Modern Americans are craven cowards. You're afraid of guns....they aren't the problem. Many others are just positive that some guy wearing a turban (I know, I know but allow me the imagery) is going to crawl in his window and slit his throat while screaming "Allahu Akhbar". This isn't the problem either.

Paul Emery

So George didn't the Alamo scenario at Waco and Ruby Ridge inspire Timothy McVeigh?


Paul, you're avoiding discussing the issues and not staying on topic.

How about summarizing what you've found the law to be regarding negligent firearms storage and transport, especially when a juvenile gains access?

Paul Emery

It depends on the State and I don't have time to research all 50 of them. Either way if 500 children die each year from guns it's unacceptable to me. More directly relating to this post I'm concerned that Alamo events as described by George may inspire more Timothy Mcveigh types.


500 a year don't die "from guns" and it's my understanding that criminal negligence exists as a charge in all 50 states.

Using Obama's recent rhetoric as a guide, if bucket control could save just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?

Todd Juvinall

Here is a stat from the CDC for those who are consumed by death facts.

1. From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.

2. About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.2 For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.

Here is the link.

Paul Emery


So what! What does that have to do with 500 children annually dying from guns? Can you not even acknowledge that it's a serious problem?

Todd Juvinall

PaulE, the point is one out of five of the death above are children. Of course the death of any child is terrible and my heart bleeds for them and their loved ones. The point is are you going to police five gallon buckets for water since many young ones accidentally drown in them? Life is a risk, people die and we all grieve when they do. But guns are simply a piece of steel.

Ben Emery

Todd doesn't seem to grasp the idea five gallon buckets aren't made to kill unlike firearms, which are made specifically to injure and kill.

As for a general note, Republicans will not support any legislation that is perceived by the NRA to regulate guns. Much like the tax bs that goes on. Make estate tax start at $5 million and it still is not negotiable for the R's. "A well regulated Militia," is a clause that grants the federal government to put conditions on gun ownership. Register weapons, proficiency training, and insurance I think are all a must to own weapons. Do these regulations and the right of the people to keep and bear arms won't be infringed.

But these gun cranks cannot give an inch while 500 children die each year needlessly.


"The right of the people to keep buckets of water shall not be infringed." Kids also drown in toilets.

Currently, there are 20,000-plus firearms laws in effect nationwide. What would the Two Emerys add to that to save 500 lives that wouldn't put others at risk. It needs to both be effective, and constitutional.

What would you have done that isn't already being done that doesn't render a firearm useless for defense of self and household? If you only want an inch and not a mile, out with it.

Ben Emery

I gave you what I would want. I don't believe we should waste our time on the tool of choice for murder but rather try to be proactive in preventing it by education and responsibility. If we want to stop gun violence it would take a huge shift as a culture in general to make it happen. But we live in profit over people culture and marketing guns and violence is profitable as is scaring the crap out of millions of Americans that their government is the enemy, especially when a black democrat sits in the white house.


Ben, it's already a crime everywhere to be negligent in the storage of a firearm, and they must be sold with locks.

"A well regulated Militia," is a clause that grants the federal government to put conditions on gun ownership."

Absolutely wrong, Ben. As stated by the SCOTUS in DC v. Heller, "The [Second] Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The prefatory clause gives the Ben Emerys of the country no power to infringe what the operative clause specifies shall not be infringed.

Todd Juvinall

Talking to BemE is hopeless. He is in to the liberal talking points and van get up. He misses the point of death comes from many areas and the liberals have focused on guns because they can jinn up the base of numbskulls to support them.

A five gallon bucket is an analogy BenE, as is falling off a ladder, car wrecks and domestic abuse. If you do not understand analogies then I apologize. Greg has stated there are already 10,000 plus laws and one more to do the same thing is like a person doing the same thing and thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.


A friend of mine, quite a bit younger than me, who does own guns and reads this blog, told me the following yesterday:

"It's obvious the right, in their heart of hearts, wants no regulation of guns in any way, shape, or form and I agree with them. Maybe for truly dangerous ex-cons and the severely mentally ill (at least the ones we know about). Beyond that you have the right to buy anything you want, at any time, and bear it anywhere. If 71% of law enforcement favor the "concept of open carry" and 91% favor concealed carry, then do anything you want because its your right." He told me he was going to get one of those long 40 round clips for his S&W and openly wear it into a movie theater. If anybody was visibly shocked or upset.... "too damn bad, my right trumps your reaction." He said, "if management gets upset I'll tell them the same thing. Besides, if somebody else pulls a gun I'll be there to stop them." I asked him if he thought George would approve and he said, "I don't care if he approves or not because he's convinced me I'm right." I was a bit appalled at his stance but I know he's level headed and wouldn't do anything rash. However, he's feisty enough to actually try this. I told him I thought it was illegal to openly carry guns in certain places in California and he said, "The constitution gives me the right; California law is wrong. Besides, Royal wouldn't do anything to me anyway." After talking to him further I got him to promise that he wouldn't actually wear his S&W into a theater. He said, "If anybody pulls a gun in there, it's gonna be your fault." I said I would take that chance. One beer later we were talking about fishing and then he admitted that he really wouldn't want to "scare the kids" anyway so he'd leave the S&W in his glove box. I asked him if he keeps it loaded in there and he just smiled and said, "what part of the 2nd Amendment don't you understand? I keep it loaded next to me on the seat. Do you want me to politely ask a carjacker to wait while I load? An unloaded gun is like a car with no tires."

Question: do you guys see anything wrong here? Would this guy make you nervous? He doesn't make me nervous because I know him. Is he just exercising his 2nd Amendment rights and nothing more? Should he actually be able to carry his gun openly into a theater? George, what do you think?

Paul Emery

Sure, bring them on. No restrictions, six-guns in fast draw holsters at local bars, airplanes, buses and the workplace.


Straw man fallacies from "Fuzz" and Paul.

Think "Wild Vermont" as a model, not wild west.

George Rebane

Fuzz 749am - I've made my position clear and constant on these pages - the more legal guns carried in the public arena the better. Neither I nor any of my conservative friends would be put off if we saw someone openly carry their weapon in public. Given that the proportion of nuts in society has increased in recent decades (death of culture, rise of political correctness, anti-parent laws, anti-American educational system, etc), my only concern about open carry is that a nut or child may successfully grab an openly carried weapon, especially in a crowded place. That is why I would recommend the concealed carry alternative. I also believe that if you have a CCW permit, it is your duty to be armed as frequently as possible and put your butt on the line when witnessing (incipient) murder or mayhem. You then contribute to the cohort of invisible legal guns in a public forum, the presumed presence of which would give pause to a contemplating criminal, and thereby contribute to the lowering of crime stats where such concealed carries are promoted and legal.

Paul Emery


I assume then that your criteria for carrying a concealed weapon is that they abide by the background checks and training currently required for a permit.

"California statute requires applicants to complete a course in firearm safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm. Departments may also require the applicant to demonstrate proficiency at their range and submit all weapons to be carried for a safety inspection. Applicants are required to submit to Live Scan for a DOJ records check. Departments may require a Psychological test of applicants."


Paul and "Fuzz" may be comforted to know that CCW holders in CA are barred from carrying in bars or when their blood alcohol is 0.02% or above, and are barred from consuming even their first drink when carrying even if their BAC remains below 0.02.

There are a number of CA laws that are at risk from being found unconstitutional under recent SCOTUS findings, but I expect the alcohol restrictions for legal concealed carry are not in dispute.

George Rebane

PaulE 1037am - I would not expend effort today contesting what you have cited, there are bigger threats to the 2nd Amendment as even this comment stream demonstrates. But I would forcefully argue against the arbitrary restrictions that certain California counties place on their residents. These counties deny wholesale their residents' 2nd Amendment rights, and are thus violating their constitutional obligations.

Paul Emery

George RE:1037

I assume those you put in responsibility to serve as first responders or backup to local police in emergency situations receive some kind of gun safety and use training. If so we might find some common ground here on some level. The record of accidents or illegal use of those with CCW permits in California is remarkably low and could serve as a model for responsible gun ownership.


Paul, with no license or training required for legal carry, I think you'll also find adults without criminal records who carry legally in Vermont (since joined by Alaska, Arizona, Montana (outside city limits) and Wyoming (only for WY residents) also have remarkably low occurrences of accident and illegal use.

It isn't the training that makes the difference, it's the intent. The information to be imparted in the training can be summarized in a very thin booklet, and it doesn't take a lot of instruction to be able to hit a target at a range to meet the requirements, just some practice.

Safe and legal firearms handling isn't rocket science.

George Rebane

PaulE 1213pm - (Did you mean my 1107?) Gregory's 1223pm is on the mark. The CCW civilian needs no training other than what is required for protecting himself with a weapon, because that in essence is what he'll be doing when intervening in a murder/mayhem situation. In the final moment, it will all depend on the situation and the CCW's exercise of judgment about what is an appropriate response. Within our broken justice system and crippled culture, the onus definitely will be on the CCW for doing the right thing.

Paul Emery

How about an eye test much like what's required for a drivers license?

By the way, training is required in California.

"The licensing authority specified in Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155 (a sheriff or the chief or other head of a municipal
police department) may issue a license to persons who are of good moral character, who have completed a course of
training, and where good cause exists for issuance of the CCW license. All applicants for a CCW license will be fingerprinted
and state and federal records will be checked to determine if they are eligible to possess firearms. The attachment to this
application list all categories that would prohibit a person from possessing firearms and being granted a CCW license. These
attachments are updated annually to reflect new legislation and other changes in the law. "

Check out the total State requirements here. Do either of you have a problem with this?


What problem are you trying to solve, Paul?

The only problems I have with the CCW process in California is the arbitrariness of the issuance, one of the dwindling few "may issue" states. Rots o' Ruck getting one in Frisco, Oakland or Lost Angels if you aren't on the Mayor's hand signed Xmas card list. I'd also like the psychological exam results they can demand to only be applicable with a court order, and be at the government's expense. If someone is crazy enough to be crazy and apply for a CCW, let's get them in the system to bar from gun ownership.

I'd also like to allow for a passing of a knowledge exam rather than listen to some former C- student drone on over the required items. I'd rather spend an hour reading everything I'm supposed to know and then pass a computerized exam. Then show up at a proctored range for a qualification round.

Last I checked, the local range giving CCW classes has a wait list lasting many months and it isn't cheap. Jump through all the hoops and the County can still decide not to issue, although I have heard the Sheriff is fairly permissive.

Paul Emery


Well, that's the way it is in California and it's implementation has been very successful. I would think the local police would like to know that those who choose to aid them in crime situations are at least reasonably competent with a firearm and have good enough eyesight to pick the right target. Also, that they don't have a history of violent crime or problems with mental stability both of which can be ferreted out with a background check.


Checking, 41 of the 50 states are "shall issue" states where an applicant who completes the application process "MUST" be issued the permit. If it isn't issued, it can't be because the local authority decides they really don't have a good enough reason.

There are now about 6 states that, in practice or law, do not issue CCW permits or allow CCW, and 5 states that in practice or law don't require permits for CCW.

Illinois, the only state that does not allow civilians to carry concealed at all, apparently has some counties that don't prosecute concealed carry, effectively turning those counties into little Vermonts. I suspect they're safer to be in than Chicago.


Paul, there are many in California who cannot get a CCW no matter how squeaky clean and rational they are, and the absolutely Byzantine transport laws in the state make it almost assuredly illegal under aggressive interpretations to simply transport a handgun from one place to another if it isn't covered by a current CCW permit.

For example, a loaded handgun is one that has its ammunition attached in any way. The intent was that if it was magazine fed and the magazine was inserted into the gun, it was loaded. Now, thanks to aggressive legal interpretations, the ammo is considered attached if it's in the same bag, or in the glove compartment with the gun in the locked trunk.

It really isn't "working" here. If I want a CCW and can't even get into a class for 5 months, and won't know for some number of weeks afterwards whether it will be issued, that means it isn't "working".

It's intended to be a barrier, pure and simple, not a simple assurance that only good and rational people can carry concealed legally. Of course, the criminally insane may do it on a regular basis without much concern for the law.

I think it's pretty clear CCW holders are not "helpers" to the police. In general, when the police arrive, anyone with a CCW who has pulled out their weapon is probably going to be putting their weapons down in a way that assures the officers that they aren't a threat while the lawmen stabilize the scene and make arrests if necessary.

BTW, a CCW isn't required to use a firearm in order to intervene in a witnessed crime. It just can't have been carried concealed.

Paul Emery

I have no problem with a "shall' as long as it includes my 2:34 criteria.


"Also, that they don't have a history of violent crime or problems with mental stability both of which can be ferreted out with a background check." Paul 2:34

Paul, anyone with a history of violent crime or mental problems isn't going to bother with the CCW permit, they'll just carry the thing.

They're also the folks who will be carrying at the local theater whether or not it is in a "gun free zone", real or pretend.


"and have good enough eyesight to pick the right target"

Someone confined to a wheelchair who can't see past 10 feet should be able to pull a permitted gun and fire on a guy advancing on them with a knife at 9 feet, and tried for murder or at the least negligent homicide if they kill someone after shooting someone too far away.

In general, ethical civilians do a better job of pulling the trigger only on bad guys better than the police to. Why? Because they were there when the crime was committed, or, if they are a resident or homeowner, they know who belongs and who doesn't.

Paul Emery

Well that's the issue isn't it. Who is responsible if someone innocent is killed or injured. In theory you're innocent till proven guilty unless you want to bypass that process. Roving amateur cops without training must assume all criminal and civil liability if they blast away. Usually police who shoot or injure a suspect are placed on administrative leave while the situation is sorted out. How would you propose that situation be handled?


"Roving amateur cops without training must assume all criminal and civil liability if they blast away." PE 3:45

Paul, you've completely missed the point and mischaracterized the Rebanes of the world. You don't have to be an "amateur cop" to protect yourself, it's a basic human right, and civilians carrying concealed don't just "blast away" or you'd have some juicy news stories to illustrate your posts.

At the risk of repetition, let me illustrate the reserve most have. A friend of mine is a retired public safety employee with a CCW permit. Nice easygoing and levelheaded guy. Some hothead got pissed off at how slow his econobox was moving and followed him to the market. He was very apologetic to the sleaze that was harassing him and did his best to disengage while calming him, as he was one brick short of a load and on the verge of attack, and my friend, who was quite ready to draw his weapon just didn't want the hassle of drawing the weapon and shooting the guy, who decided to leave when he just couldn't provoke my friend into a verbal battle.

A few weeks later the sleaze was identified by a local newspaper as a meth user/dealer in custody.

As Heinlein noted, "An armed society is a polite society". My friend would rather back down than shoot an SOB who probably needed to be shot, but then my friend isn't in the "shoot the SOB" business.

Paul Emery


But we're talking about civilians enlisted to protect school as well correct where they may be the first responders to a shooting incident. That's different than the self defense situation you cited above. Also I quote George from 09 May 2013 at 10:23 AM. He writes "I also believe that if you have a CCW permit, it is your duty to be armed as frequently as possible and put your butt on the line when witnessing (incipient) murder or mayhem." Does this not imply acting not in self defense but as a first responder armed civilian taking possibly deadly action to thwart a crime?


Paul why dance around it just admit you were not truthful in most of your previous posts and say that a firearm in the hands of anyone except a police officer or similar agent of the state is unacceptable to you.

Few here will agree with your position but at least you can make your argument in good faith.


Paul Emery

That's not shat I said Gregory. I said that a firearm in the hands of a person properly trained and screened is OK by me. Did you read my post at at all?

"Well, that's the way it is in California and it's implementation has been very successful. I would think the local police would like to know that those who choose to aid them in crime situations are at least reasonably competent with a firearm and have good enough eyesight to pick the right target. Also, that they don't have a history of violent crime or problems with mental stability both of which can be ferreted out with a background check. "

Paul Emery | 09 May 2013 at 12:13 PM

"I have no problem with a "shall' as long as it includes my 2:34 criteria. "

Paul Emery | 09 May 2013 at 03:10 PM

Paul Emery

Sorry Gregory, should have been a response to fish | 09 May 2013 at 04:56 PM

Bill Tozer

This all hogwash dancing around the issue. What gives you the right to free speech? Freedom of the press? Are these rights given to us by Government? Some governor? Some state senator? The Nevada City Council? Nay. The 2nd Amendment is my gun permit. The permit was issued 12/15/1791 with no expiration date. Now, what about this is so friggin hard to understand? No comprende? No sabe? Do guns scare you? Afraid of the Boogey Man?

Guns do not have rights. I have rights.

Bill Tozer

With the unprecedented increase in people buying guns, the results are clear:

Ben Emery

Well Greg,
reply to your ll:07pm comment

If you would look a little deeper into the issue than wikipedia you would understand the ruling better. In the majority opinion Scalia talks about permissible regulations. Although not part of the decision the fact it is in the majority opinion is significant. Federal regulations weren't part of the decision or case.

Lets put that aside for the moment. The Constitution and the US Supreme Court once said African Americans (Slaves) were property for the owners to do with as they please.

What the founders created was a very progressive form of government for the late 18th Century but understood it was incomplete and would be amended as the world and nation changed. Article V to be more specific was their answer to such changes.


"But we're talking about civilians enlisted to protect school as well correct where they may be the first responders to a shooting incident." -Paul

No, "we" are doing no such thing. We've just been talking about people going about their own business being able to carry if they so choose, and assuming the liability for their actions. Everyone I've known who has done this legally and on the edges has (it's called "judged by 12 rather than carried by 6") has taken it very seriously.

Weeks ago when the CCW holders as school guards was being floated I was (and remain) dead set against it. I don't think the ones itching to do this service should be allowed to do it; people already with jobs in the school, if qualified, should be allowed to carry. They're the ones who belong in the schools and would be keenly aware if something was out of sorts, not a geriatric brigade who don't have a purpose besides carrying a gun and trying not to fall asleep.

Glad you finally figured out you had someone else's post confused with mine.


Sorry Gregory, should have been a response to fish | 09 May 2013 at 04:56 PM

I read your post...I'm not convinced you mean what you say. No offense. It's just that I've been round and round with guys like you who seem awfully prone to "goalpost moving".

As I said, arguing what I believe is your actual position, that only those who serve as representatives of the state should be allowed access and use of firearms is a more honest argument.


"If you would look a little deeper into the issue than wikipedia you would understand the ruling better." - Ben

Ben, leave the snide sarcasm to the professionals... you just don't have the knack.

I've read the rulings myself, and they don't support your ideas.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

"Regulated" in the prefatory clause has nothing to do with the right not being unlimited. For example, you don't have the right to keep and bear arms down to the bank in order to rob it in much the same way you don't have the freedom of speech to tell a malicious lie in order to harm another.

The comments to this entry are closed.