Spokane7
58°
January 14, 2011 in Nation/World
Few back tougher gun laws
Congress, White House largely avoiding issue for now
WASHINGTON – Most lawmakers are greeting calls for tougher gun restrictions after the Arizona shootings with silence, reflecting the tilt in recent years toward expanding access to firearms rather than curtailing it.
The White House, too, is sidestepping questions on an issue that is among the most toxic in U.S. politics.
So far, proposed legislation has focused on prohibiting magazine clips that allow a shooter to fire off numerous rounds of ammunition without reloading. The shooter in Tucson, using a Glock semiautomatic pistol with a 33-round magazine, shot 19 people, six fatally. One of the wounded was a member of Congress, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., now in critical condition.
Similar magazine-limiting legislation was introduced after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings but was never considered by the House or Senate.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., is drafting a bill supported by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that would prohibit people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of the president, members of Congress or federal judges.
Magazine clips were limited to 10 rounds under the 1994 assault weapons ban. Congress let that law expire in 2004 after Republicans were seen to have capitalized on the National Rifle Association’s opposition to it in the 2000 presidential race and other elections.
The Tucson shootings have brought fresh calls to make clips with more than 10 rounds illegal from the same core group of Democratic lawmakers who have led past efforts for stricter gun controls: Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York.
Leaders in both parties on both sides of the Capitol, as well as the White House, have dodged questions on whether the capacity of gun magazines should be reduced.
“This is a time for the House and all Americans to come together to mourn our losses and pray for those who are recovering, not a time for politics,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.
Democratic leaders were also reticent to comment.
“At the moment, the leader’s thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords and those who were killed and injured,” said Drew Hammill, spokesman for Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.
President Barack Obama, a strong gun-control advocate earlier in his political career, noted in his speech at a Tucson memorial service on Wednesday that the shooting had sparked a national conversation on issues including “the merits of gun safety laws” – but he said nothing of his own views on the matter.
When he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama said it was a “scandal” that President George W. Bush was allowing the assault weapons ban to expire without pushing for its renewal. And as a presidential candidate, he promised to push to reinstate the ban. After the election he said it would be difficult to do.
Asked Thursday if Obama would press to reinstate the assault weapons ban, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs demurred, saying the White House was focused on the healing process but would evaluate “ideas and proposals” brought forward by the Tucson case.
“The president, again, since I have been with him in 2004, has supported the assault weapons ban. And we continue to do so,” Gibbs said. “And I think we all strive, regardless of party, to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to reduce violence. We’ll have an opportunity to evaluate some of the other proposals.”
The silence on gun legislation may well reflect the state of firearms politics as well as the respect and courtesy lawmakers want to convey for the Arizona victims. Gun control advocates have been on the losing end of most legislative debates in recent years. In 2009, for example, Congress passed legislation allowing guns in national parks, and Obama signed it.
Polling also points to how the political landscape has changed. In 1990, Gallup first asked about the status of laws covering the sale of firearms. Back then, 79 percent said such laws should be made stricter. By 2000, that figure had dropped to 62 percent. And in the most recent polling, in October, that number dropped to 44 percent.
Gun control advocates say the immediacy of the Tucson shootings is key to pushing legislation now, before public outrage fades.
“The NRA is doing what it always does: they want people to not talk about the issue, they want to delay until the collective state of excitement over the issue has gone down,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
National Rifle Association officials declined repeated requests to discuss their efforts in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. Spokesman Andrew Arulanandam sent an e-mail saying, “At this time anything other than prayers for the victims and their families would be inappropriate.”
Chad Ramsey of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his group would reach out to nearly 100 new lawmakers to gauge their interest in restricting magazine capacity.
“When they see someone from their own fraternity get shot, they may come at this issue with a fresh set of eyes,” Ramsey said. “There are people who may have said to the NRA, ‘Yeah, I’ll support whatever you want’ who now think “I’ve got to support this. We’re talking about barring 33-round magazines. Who needs those?’ “
Both sides said they’ve sent lobbyists to the Capitol this week in an attempt to gauge support. Lawmakers and congressional aides, though, said lobbying activity has been minimal.
“I think lobbying groups may feel this is personal to all of us; they may feel it could end up backfiring if they come in,” said New York’s Rep. King.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
empyrius on January 14 at 3:07 a.m.
Echoing Josh Horwitz I also ask how long do we have to wait until we can earnestly debate gun control? Or do we just wait until next week when our attention is diverted when we invade another country or have another lunatic murder a school load of our children or get embroiled in arguing why we would have a national holiday for that “anti-American, Marxist-loving” MLK . . .
Chris Rock did have a good idea in that every bullet should cost five thousand dollars! I don’t think very many crazies would be able to afford to go on a murdering spree armed with 33 round clips after that since only the “important” people in this nation would be able to afford having Rambo arsenals.
As far as a law that would prohibit people from carrying a gun within a 1000 feet of a Congressperson or federal judge, how would we identify these people? Would they have to wear red badges or hats? Then of course we would have to pass another law making it illegal for “the public” to wear red hats and/or badges . . .
Margin note: Why would somebody get the death sentence for killing a 60 year old judge, but only 10-20 years for murdering a nine year old “civilian” girl? Why is the life of a public “servant” more important than the public that she/he “serves”? So we are all born equal (on paper anyway), but you get a government job then you become more equal then others! Interesting.
Anyway. Repeal the second amendment!
http://empyrius.blogspot.com/2011/01/repeal-2nd-amendment.html
pax vobiscum
Liberty_Bell on January 14 at 6:44 a.m.
It’s already been debated empyrius.
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
— George Washington
Gato on January 14 at 6:56 a.m.
George Washington never said that.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=33357
Gato on January 14 at 7:05 a.m.
As for 33-round clips, if you need 33 chances to hit something, you shouldn’t be allowed to go near a gun. You’d think the NRA, which supports firearms education, would be less of an advocate for those who don’t know how to aim.
hawken on January 14 at 7:08 a.m.
Well surprise, surprise! On the heals of a lunatic going on a shooting rage, the liberal left starts screaming for more gun control.
What the left does not get, its that stricter gun control laws will do absolutely nothing to stop lunatics shooting other people. Career criminals will have as many guns,,, drug cartels will have as many guns,,,, street gangs will have as many guns,,, and on and on.
What the left wants to do is repeal the second amendment as noted above and therefore disarm law abiding Americans.
Quote: Newsweek
Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.
Sowell, who is African-American, correctly points out that gun-control laws don’t control guns, “They disarm potential victims. Why do you think they disarmed slaves? Because if slaves had been armed, that would have been the end of slavery.” End Quote:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
There is much, much more at the link above. Of course, it doesn’t matter to the radical left. For the rest, I highly recommend that you read the two part series above.
As long as we continue to give the radical left seats in congress and the presidency, we will give approval to the deterioration of our individual rights, we will inflict more carnage upon our economic health and we will turn over the governance of our nation more and more to “international law” and the despots that run the United Nations.
In the last two years of Obama, we have moved more to the standards of the European style Socialist form of government.
Quote:
Feb 7, 2009 … We Are All Socialists Now. In many ways our economy already resembles a European one.
“As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.” End Quote: [My Note: It’s gotten worse since Newsweek article was published].
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/06/we-are-all-socialists-now.html
We have made a very good start to correct the madness of the radical left as of November past. However, unless more American Citizens get involved in the political process, the radical left will continue their dismantling of the greatest nation in world history.
Great civilizations do not fall from foreign powers. Great civilizations fall from within.
hawken on January 14 at 7:11 a.m.
My Newsweek Tag should be attached to this:
Quote: Newsweek
Feb 7, 2009 … We Are All Socialists Now. In many ways our economy already resembles a European one.
Here’s another opportunity for the radical left, such as Spokaneliberal to call me a liar.
mikeln on January 14 at 7:29 a.m.
You are more likely to die in a car accident or some mishap involving prescription drugs then being shot to death. Americans need to be armed, it keeps the wealthy from making pets out of us. While I believe some things need to be taken away from sleazebag capitalists, like healthcare and energy, we can never let these same people disarm us. I am a well armed liberal and proud of it.
IHike4Fun on January 14 at 7:34 a.m.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
— James Madison, The Federalist Papers
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
— Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
— Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942
fishinjay on January 14 at 7:38 a.m.
Being a liberal myself, I often find myself having to defend the Second Amendment to my liberal friends. Rather than re-hash the whole argument I’ll point folks toward the Daily Kos. The liberal blog site has made the best argument I have ever read in support of the Second Amendment.
Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment - The Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
wobble506 on January 14 at 7:57 a.m.
It never fails. A tragic event is a soapbox for gun control. Never mind that most felons and lunatics, who are prohibited from owning guns anyway, wouldn’t continue to obtain firearms to perpetrate further crimes. Look at all the shining examples of strict gun control that have worked SO well!
Lets see, there is Prince Georges County MD, which has some of the strictest gun controls. So far this year, they have had 13 murders. That’s right, one a day!!. They decided to bring in the feds to assist them. Wow, gun control is really working there. And then there is my perennial favorite, WDC, which routinely is referred to as the murder capital of the US. Currently, its only ranked 31st or something like that. Its also working really well in Chicago, Camden NJ, despite some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US. (NJ has 3 cities in the top ten this year!). And lets talk about Mexico, where its almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun there. How’s it working out for those border towns?
And here is a quote from Wikipedia -
“Political scientist Earl R. Kruschke states, regarding the fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that “approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.” None. NONE!!.
Hmm, maybe its not law abiding citizens who own guns that are the problems. Its the criminal element, in larger, inner cities (typically left wing, predominately liberal voting areas), that are the problem. Maybe the real criminal is the liberals who are trying to take away my rights, even though I have done nothing wrong. They are the ones that work so hard to disarm the average citizen, and turn them into victims of people who have no regard for the law to begin with.
johnclarke on January 14 at 8:05 a.m.
“Well surprise, surprise! On the heals of a lunatic going on a shooting rage, the liberal left starts screaming for more gun control.”
You must use special glasses buddie. I read the whole article and I did not see anything about the liberal left screaming about anything. In fact, I think the only person screaming is you, Hawken…probably in a padded room someday soon.
johnclarke on January 14 at 8:07 a.m.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf
And here is the debunking of your “statistics” buddie. You are only off by like 2,400,000.
lewis8457 on January 14 at 8:09 a.m.
Gato that is ripe are you aware we had a shooting a few months back where 3 cops sprayed a neighborhood with 31 bullets to catch one guy running down the block with a gun in his hands?
we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from our government, and the way it is looking those days are not that far off.
lewis8457 on January 14 at 8:17 a.m.
Empyrius same point I have been asking for years why is it OK for the police to kill civilian at will with NO ACCOUNTABILITY but when a nut kills one of them it is like Jesus Christ got shot.
All points bulletin goes out and every cop loads his gun and starts looking. An elderly pastor tried to protect his land a cop shoots him and the city send the cop on a vacation to Vegas.
now if you want go to KXLY blog you can talk to retired cops Kivaar, wouldibsu and valleyman and they will tell you citizens are scum stupid and ignorant. And deserve to be killed at will because it is fun.
.
cdspokesreader on January 14 at 8:38 a.m.
Although I have been attacked by hawken as being one of those liberal left wing nut jobs, I don’t believe we need to change the second amendment. Gun control has never really worked in the past - if criminals and crazies want them they can get them. What I think we should be talking about here is the lack of programs to help the mentally ill in this country. I know that’s just my liberal side trying to get more government money out to help people, but I would think that would be much more effective in stopping these tragedies than gun control. There have been so many cuts in funding for mental health in the last 20 years that there are a lot of people out there roaming around without meds that scare me more than guns. So I think we can have a compromise here with the ultra conservatives - keep your guns but help out with some funding for mental health issues. Quit trying to leave it up to charity groups and churches to deal with them.
Orange on January 14 at 9:24 a.m.
LOL, you people crack me up. Now get back to work.
Kivaari on January 14 at 9:24 a.m.
Poor Lewis, Wherever you go you have to continue the BIG LIE. Spvalleyman, wouldibsu and I have great respect for individuals. I don’t know their position on gun control, but I believe the government has no business getting into the path of private citizens defending themselves. Our constitution doesn’t give us rights. It protects our rights. Police officer’s have an equal right to self defense. Your BIG LIE about police just murdering people is without foundation. Last year 4 people died in Spokane County due to police gun fire. In one case with any serious doubt hanging over it is the Creach incident. Hirzel will be found to have acted within the law. All of the other cases are clear cut cases of self-defense or the defense of others. Lewis is is wrong to keep up your insane rage and hate. Calm down.
Orphan on January 14 at 9:34 a.m.
How many laws does a liberal think they need to pass before the nut jobs and criminals will obay them.
Its already unlawful to shoot people unless its shooting in selfdefence
It unlawful to be insane and own a firearm.
Its unlawful to be addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and own firearms.
Hi cap Magazines are unlawful to own in several states but golly gee the criminals still have them.
The only thing any new gun laws would do is further restrict law abiding gun owners cause the criminals wont obay the law anyway.
We have to stop over reacting to single events and statisticaly insignificant events like this. More people died that day in vehicle accidents, heart attacks and cancer yet lets all see the news and change the world wilst singing koombayya. Life is dangerious get used to it.
johnclarke on January 14 at 9:45 a.m.
Tell me Orphan - where in this article does it say only liberals want to pass gun control laws ?
hawken on January 14 at 9:47 a.m.
Another pathetic attempt on the part of the radical left, Clarke, to detract and mislead concerning the preponderance of evidence in favor of defending our gun rights as Americans.
What’s curious to me is that he legally carries a concealed weapon, along with his wife….. According to Clarke.
Moreover, he boasts at length (yesterday’s blog), of his self proclaimed, unique and superior qualifications to do so…. all the while maligning the qualifications one of the heroes in the Arizona shooting, who was carrying a concealed weapon when he intervened to stop the carnage.
By the way, that “unqualified person”, in Clarke’s elitist view, correctly assessed the situation under extreme duress and chose to tackle the shooter rather than shoot the shooter. Which Clarke pointed out.
So,,,, I guess that we are to conclude,,, according to Clarke’s view, is that even the “unqualified” to have a CCW [by Clarke’s assessment], do indeed, have the capacity to use good judgment with a firearm,,,, even when they are not counted among the elite, by Clarke, both in political world view and firearms training.
Contradictions and hypocrisy abound in the mind of Clarke…. of course this is only my “free speech” opinion and assessment of Clarke and his confused analysis.
MrNatural on January 14 at 9:47 a.m.
Ugh…this crap again…
I don’t own a firearm…I don’t care for firearms…and I believe you place yourself and your family at a higher risk of being shot, injured or killed when a firearm is in the home.
Oddly enough I was a firearms safety instructor in Maryland and have attained expert marksman.
That being said I have friends who absolutely must have a firearm to feel secure. I accept this.
I guess what I’m getting at is this right versus privilege thing.
If owning a firearm is a right then anyone should be allowed to carry one…ANYONE!…anywhere at any time. (including prior felons)
On the other hand if owning a firearm is a privilege then as with autos and boats there should be licensing and routine “proficiency” examinations…proficiency meaning safety and handling and even a sign off by a medical professional.
One would lose their privilege for reasons analogous to the way they revoke driver’s licenses.
As a card carrying “proud to be a liberal” United States citizen I honestly do not want to take away anyone’s need for a firearm. I just want to find a way so they don’t get into the hands of some dumbass or nutcase.
…this is my opinion and that’s all. I do not care to discuss it further
wobble506 on January 14 at 9:55 a.m.
RE: johnclarke on January 14 at 8:07 a.m.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pap…
And here is the debunking of your “statistics” buddie. You are only off by like 2,400,000.
First off, this is a 14 yr old study (yes, written in 97, and most statistics in it are from the years 92-94).
Second, perhaps, if you had researched these guys a little further, you would realize they are not the best source for justifying your arguments. They are not without their own agenda. I read the paper, and researched some of the names. Most are pretty ardent gun control advocates, such as Hubert Williams of the Police Foundation. His articles in the Washington Post make his position very clear. Less guns, period. Interestingly enough, he was the “Police Director” for Newark NJ, one of the states/cities with the most stringent gun controls and, subsequently, some of the highest crimes per capita. Maybe his policies aren’t so great?
They focus on the most stringent and narrow approach to reporting DGU’s, and they openly admit that most sampling is biased or incorrect, where most of these so called numbers on both sides come from. Even in their own article, they admit that “something goes wrong in the effort to use surveys to estimate defensive gun uses.” They think the only verifiable DGU’s are the ones that are reported thru NCVS, which is severely limited in scope. You have to report the crime, which many “potential victims” fail to do. You have to have been a victim of a crime, in order for it to count. If I successfully defend myself, no crime, no reporting, so it does not count, so its not a legitimate DGU? Really? I’ve have 3 such instances in the last 20 yrs. I guess none of those count.
SO, both numbers are flawed, your’s is probably way to low, and the NRA’s is probably way too high.
But either way, taking away my guns is not the answer to the problem. Its just makes me that much more likely to be a victim of someone who does not care about whether they can legally own a gun or how they use it.
hawken on January 14 at 9:56 a.m.
Hey Natural: You say….
“If owning a firearm is a right then anyone should be allowed to carry one…ANYONE!…anywhere at any time. (including prior felons)”
Brilliant! Thank you for again demonstrating the convoluted mind of the radical left.
You also say….
“…this is my opinion and that’s all. I do not care to discuss it further”
Translated: I have posted a convoluted, radical left opinion on a public blog and no one has the right to questions it. Therefore, I will not try to defend my radical left opinion…. and I will not discuss it further. Who cares about intellectual integrity,,, even on occasion to post on this blog?
misjustice on January 14 at 9:59 a.m.
Mr. Natural, I can always count on you to bring either reason or humor to a discussion. Thank you.
; )
hawken on January 14 at 10:05 a.m.
Looks like it’s time for the radical left to circle the wagons on this string following the lead of one of their most ubiquitous, apologists on this blog,,,, for the radical left…. Misjudgment.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 14 at 10:06 a.m.
We are the only industrialized country in the world that has such lenient guns laws. We are the only industrialized country in the world that allows just about anyone to get a gun - including crazy psychos because our gun laws are such crap. We are the industrialized country in the world that has problems with each other shooting and killing each other. We are the only industrialized country in the world that allows our citizens to go on a mass killing spree and then in two weeks act like nothing happened. We are also, by far and away, the only industrialized country the world that has such a gun problem and allows just about anyone to get a gun and we are in the same boat as countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia and others. Its nice that the United States is grouped in with such uncivilized countries that are more interested in the people killing each other and taking power than actually being a real country were the people look out for and help each in civil non-violent ways.
Sorry when the second amendment was passed this is NOT what our funding father had in mind. Its to bad the NRA and the right wing has hijacked this topic and not allow any civil and legitimate arguments and instead we will continue to has mass shootings were innocent people die because we as a country feel the need to be able to carry AK-47’s with 100 round clips for “hunting”. If anyone tells you they need to to high powered automatic weapon with 100 round clips to hunt deer…..they are full of crap and they know it.
johnclarke on January 14 at 10:08 a.m.
No Hawken, that is not what I said. Can you read? I stated that in spite of a fair amount of training with a handgun, I think law enforcement should be left to the professionals. I am not qualified to play cop.
The person in AZ very nearly SHOT THE WRONG PERSON which you could have also read, should you ever choose to read - before posting your rambling, confused diatribe.
“By the way, that “unqualified person”, in Clarke’s elitist view, correctly assessed the situation under extreme duress and chose to tackle the shooter rather than shoot the shooter. Which Clarke pointed out.”
No Hawken, no. The shooter was disarmed and restrained on the ground. The person that disarmed the murderer was holding the Glock. The armed individual nearly drew on him (he had his hand on his gun with the safety off) and shot him. Again, can you read - or do you simply choose to be dense? I think it’s the second one. You simply can not accept being wrong, and since you are wrong literally all of the time - you might want to get used to it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slatecom/
There you go, read the article.
BTW, there is no such thing as a “CCW”.
Regardless, unless you get your meds leveled out, you should step back from the keyboard. You don’t actually own a firearm do you ? I certainly hope not. If so, please have your nurse take it away.
Thoreau on January 14 at 10:10 a.m.
There are over 200 million guns in the United States. How often does someone go berserk with one?
hawken on January 14 at 10:15 a.m.
liberal_in_right_wing_land
You simply give us another radical left, misleading, fallacious, fraudulent, retort.
Begin Quote:
Gun control abroad
In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate.
But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated.
In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.
Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless. End Quote:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp
At some point, the American People will see even more (after November 2010),,,, the danger the radical left posses to our Republic.
empyrius on January 14 at 10:17 a.m.
Leave it to Liberty_Bell to rebut with a “quote” Washington never spoke.
As far as hawken’s quote that, “Career criminals will have as many guns,,, drug cartels will have as many guns,,,, street gangs will have as many guns,,, and on and on”. For perhaps the first year of a gun ban, but after that most all of those peoples would be eradicated by the police; and of course once used they would be unable to reload!
And, as noted by johnclarke, the methodology of Kleck and Gertz has proven to be more than simply inept!
Then of course hawken goes into his usual “socialism” rant: if you wanna see socialism hawken look up “defense” contractors and the U.S. government and super-rich failed bankers and the government!
mikeln writes, “Americans need to be armed, it keeps the wealthy from making pets out of us”.
Too late for that!
IHike4Fun gives us a Hamilton quote which is seriously funny considering how Hamilton died, and then a Gandhi and Hitler quote. Outside of the fact Gandhi perfected resistance by nonviolent means, did you also read his quote that the Jews should have sheepishly submitted to Hitler’s Germany! But I do admit that I am a little unnerved someone would use a Hitler quote to defend their position.
wobble506 writes, “It never fails. A tragic event is a soapbox for gun control. Never mind that most felons and lunatics, who are prohibited from owning guns anyway, wouldn’t continue to obtain firearms to perpetrate further crimes”.
Exactly! And then you list statistics of inner-city kids with no hope shooting each other up thinking that augments your argument?!? Quite the opposite is what I infer.
Orphan writes, “It [is] unlawful to be insane and own a firearm. Its unlawful to be addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and own firearms”.
Obviously not Orphan, obviously not.
Good reasonable posts Mr. Natural and liberal_in_right_wing_land.
Anyways, I am not suggesting a complete repeal of the second amendment. Every law-abiding citizen should have a hunting rifle. But if we rid our society of handguns, 33 round clips, and AK-47s, our nation would be a far safer place.
Again, charge $5,000.00 per bullet! You will then see gun violence drop to 0!
And for those that want to have houses full of weapons to protect you from the government, well …, you are hopelessly, and quite literally, outgunned!
Pax vobiscum
hawken on January 14 at 10:19 a.m.
Clarke… more radical left misrepresentation….
Washington State CCW laws
10 posts - 9 authors - Last post: Mar 24, 2010
Below is the info I contributed to legallyarmed.org last year: Washington “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of …
www.usacarry.com/…/washington…/204-washington-state-ccw-laws.html - Cached - Similar
Washington CCW Concealed Carry Hand Gun Legal Info
Jul 30, 2010 … This page contains information regarding Washington concealed carry CCW laws including Washington legal statutes, links to Washington CCW …
apps.carryconcealed.net/legal/washington-ccw-state-laws.php - Cached - Similar
Washington State CCW laws…. - THR
18 posts - 10 authors - Last post: Oct 17, 2009
State installations are pre-empted by Washington’s CPL law. They CANNOT restrict firearms carry in State government locations except for …
www.thehighroad.org › Social Situations › Legal - Cached - Similar
Washinton state non-resident CCW permits
Washington CCW question: have Michigan CCW, moving to Washington …
CCW, School Premises in Washington State?
Washington state/ CCW permits they honor?
Has anyone introduced you to the Internet?
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 14 at 10:29 a.m.
Hawken, here are countries with WAY stronger gun control laws…..amazing every single one of them have way lower crime rates, murder rates and gun problems than the United States.
Australia
Canada
China
india
the European Union
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
Japan
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland - while everyone is allowed to carry one, their laws are MUCH still much more restrictive than the US.
Nice try Hawken and picking out a few examples, but the truth is pretty easy to find.
Edwame on January 14 at 10:31 a.m.
What a fundamental debate that has endured the test of time. The second Amendment to he United States Constitution has a few variations in punctuation depending on which copy is read but a generally accepted version is:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
What does it mean? It continues to be open to interpretation and debate as to what the original intent was when written.
hawken on January 14 at 10:31 a.m.
With the exception of the newly elected, Republican House of Representatives,,,,, this radical left controls our U.S. Senate and the Presidency.
If this does not awaken the sleeping giant, the American people,,,, we will get more of exactly what we don’t want…. with no one else to blame.
What’s encouraging to me is that in November 2010, this radical left got a “shellacking”,,,, using Obama’s words….
This is hope.
hawken on January 14 at 10:35 a.m.
Edwame
The U.S. Supreme Court made clear the obvious….
The American People have the right to bear arms….. Period…. just as the Constitution clearly states. This is not a matter of,,,, “it depends upon what is, is.” Clinton.
Gato on January 14 at 10:35 a.m.
A couple quick points. No one is talking about banning guns. You’ll always be able to buy a shotgun, saw it off, and attach a pistol grip. Go ahead, get half a dozen so you can fend off the U.S. Army.
Second, at the risk of provoking more diatribes, let me ask this: Where do you draw the line? Are bazookas OK? Anti-aircraft missiles? Machine guns? Pistols with 50-round clips? 33-rounds? 9 rounds?
I think we can all agree that some weapons shouldn’t be sold to citizens. I’d be curious to know where the avid gun-rights folks think their right to bear arms is overriden by my right not to get blown up.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 14 at 10:37 a.m.
Hawken thinks this government is a radical left liberal machine. So does that mean George Bush was a radical liberal leftist also since Obama has continued most of Bush’s policies?
Kivaari on January 14 at 10:39 a.m.
I love the call for raising the price of ammo to $5,000 per round. Just one more item to be smuggled into America. So each kilo of cocaine will come with a pistol and a box of ammo taped to it. More reason for more violence along our borders.
Let’s say they government passes new gun laws, like the ones of old. All gun laws are designed to repress lower class people or races. New York’s famous Sullivan act, was designed to disarm the Jews and Irish that the upper classes found to be inferior. All southern states outlawed blacks from having guns. If the ignorant former slaves were armed, we superior white trash folks would find it harder to lynch the colored folk. Even the old English found that a major part of their early “Bill of Rights”, made the king have to recognize the poor people had a right to self defense and a right to bear arms. The English used to put the knife or sword on trial as well as the person.
Modern gun control is designed to hold down we little people. We are not smart or sophisticated enough to be trusted to have guns. Never mind that the people in high places can always have guns, because they are special cases. They are rich and smart. Liberals suffer from a deep seated mental disorder. If you are a rich liberal, then your mental disorder also comes with arrogance, but you’re still ignorant as hell.
lisac on January 14 at 10:49 a.m.
ihike4fun and hawken - AMEN! Well said fellow Americans… well said.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 14 at 10:52 a.m.
Wow — if an article like this one, which only mentions controlling assault weapons and extended magazine clips*, generates such a response, it’s hard to imagine how an actual debate about how to limit public massacres could ever take place.
Kind of makes me want to try that civility thing that people are talking about…
*(I understand there’s a subtext of but-this-will-be-just-a-stepping-stone-to-taking-away-all-guns-from-everyone underneath all this.)
johnclarke on January 14 at 10:57 a.m.
Hawken, it’s called a CPL which you were kind enough to provide in your own post, duh. *sigh*
www.dol.wa.gov
John_Fever_Richmond on January 14 at 10:58 a.m.
Without guns, how do you expect me to protect my METH?
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 14 at 10:58 a.m.
Just wondering how many of you posting on this blog have a concealed carry permit and regularly carry your piece on your person? John
greenlibertarian on January 14 at 11:00 a.m.
Once again, you gun nut dolts.
“• Ronald Reagan lobbied members of the House of Representatives to support the 1994 federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed by only two votes; at least two House members publicly credited Reagan’s direct appeals for their “aye” votes.
• In the early 1990s, President Reagan lobbied Congress to pass the Brady Law, major gun safety initiative vigorously opposed by the gun lobby.
• During Reagan’s tenure as President, bans on cop-killer bullets, undetectable handguns, and the manufacture and sale of machine guns became law.”
“”You do know that I’m a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known…But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.”
- Ronald Reagan
““[L]isten to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of [assault] weapons.”
— Joint letter from former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy
Carter, and Gerald Ford, Assault Weapons Ban Appears to Gain, The Boston Globe, 5/5/94
“As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill (Assault Weapons ban, 10-round clips) are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in
supporting this bill. It must be passed.”
— Letter to former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI), Klug Bows to Reagan Plea on Ban, The Capital Times, 5/6/94”
http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/reagans%20gun%20legacy.pdf
misjustice on January 14 at 11:06 a.m.
This is circulating on the internet……..I agree with the statement.
To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons made Oprah fat!
Remember, Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!
hawken on January 14 at 11:09 a.m.
greenliberal:
So,,, do you have a point?
Other than your….. “Once again, you gun nut dolts.”
Do you seriously think that your cut and paste supports your….
“Once again, you gun nut dolts.”
Your post appears to be nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy from the radical left.
johnclarke on January 14 at 11:20 a.m.
Chef, I have found that your question - which is a great question - will go unanswered. Most of the loudmouths have some rusty shotgun in the closet and think the gubmint is coming to take away their guns. When Obama was elected, there was a right wing conspiracy theory that all the ammo was going to get controlled. You could literally not buy ammunition anywhere. People were waiting for Wal Mart to open and snatching the entire stock before it was placed on the shelf. What happened? Nothing, except a bunch of loonies drove up the stocks of Winchester (who gets their ammo from China) and other ammo makers. What proposals are pending from the great liberal gubmint takeover? None. How many since Obama was elected? None.
The people protesting the loudest are normally just posers that can’t shoot, never practice and probably don’t own a firearm. There will not be any meaningful controls, so feel free to stock up on your 33 round mags to hunt and take on the new generation of super animals.
johnclarke on January 14 at 11:22 a.m.
Green - even the Great Communicator could not make meaningful changes that lasted more than a few years.
hawken on January 14 at 11:23 a.m.
ChefGus on January 14 at 10:58 a.m.
Just wondering how many of you posting on this blog have a concealed carry permit and regularly carry your piece on your person? John
Gus…. Who cares? What’s your point? I have a CCW… as does my wife. So what?
The discussion is about gun rights, per the Constitution and those whom choose to bear arms?
So what’s your point?
Ron
hawken on January 14 at 11:30 a.m.
Clarke….. What a brillant, member of the radical left you are! We should all bow and praise your infinite, possession of facts…
Who could have known that you possess the wisdom and resources to know this!
“The people protesting the loudest are normally just posers that can’t shoot, never practice and probably don’t own a firearm. There will not be any meaningful controls, so feel free to stock up on your 33 round mags to hunt and take on the new generation of super animals.”
Please! Let me know where you get such indisputable facts! This could change the world and move the masses to the radical left!
Do you realize the power of what you are keeping to yourself!?
Let me bow in worship to you and never, never, again question your wisdom! NOT.
johnclarke on January 14 at 11:35 a.m.
They are called CPL’s Hawken….and how did you fill out the application without lying? It asks if you are mentally ill. Yes, you should bow to me, because I am much, much smarter than you buddie.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 14 at 11:37 a.m.
I would rather be a member of the radical left, than a member of the racist, bigoted radical right.
hawken on January 14 at 11:39 a.m.
Just so all of you know how wise Clarke is,,,, you should all know, he actually trained U.S. Pilots how to survive after being shot down during his service in the USAF.
Now if that doesn’t just totally support his radical left views,,, of course not to overlook his self proclaimed, unique, exemplary, training in firearms….. then what else can one say?
All conservative should totally capitulate to Clarke,,, in his infinite, superior, wisdom and experience…. and defect to the radical left.
Of course, for the benefit of the radical left, all of this is nothing more than a common, literary device used by me, called “hyperbole”,,,, to make my point.
hawken on January 14 at 11:43 a.m.
liberal_in_right_wing_land
We get it,,,, you have no point from the above posts. Other than your radical left attempt at character assassination.
Well done…. at least you’re consistent with the strategies of the radical left…. when you can’t debate the points,,,, character assassination rules the day.
The real tragedy is that you have no intention to do otherwise… Pretty sad, don’t you think?
valleyman on January 14 at 11:50 a.m.
This is getting so bad on here it’s not worth spending my time with it…
Hawken - You’re doing no one any favors by actually BEING the nutcase they claim you are by getting so emotionally caught up in things… Breathe and use facts and don’t respond to insults.
Clarke - You could sue the same advice. Hawken’s got no right to call you names or belittle you, but when you do it back or put down entire groups of people, lumping some of those who post in with them, you also do yourself a disservice and feed the flames…
GreenLib - Gun nut dolts? Seriously? Because some in here believe in their right to have something they are allowed to have and that the courts have consistently said they can, they are nuts? I know you to be a better debater than that…
It’s nice to see comments that, while I don’t agree with them a lot of the time, they are at least rooted in common sense, polite language, and even, dare I say facts… Empyrius, while I disagree with you, it is clear you know how to carry on a debate, and I salute you for that.
A last parting shot at gun control here of my own:
Cities with some of the most stringent gun control laws, i.e. Chicago, Washington D.C. also have the highest crime rates per capita involving gun crimes… So how does gun control really work if only those committing the crimes have guns?
valleyman on January 14 at 11:51 a.m.
Errrrr…. should have said use rather than sue… :)
hawken on January 14 at 11:52 a.m.
Clarke’s own words should put this to rest…. Clarke has such a self proclaimed, elitist, radical left, view of himself, that anyone who disagrees with him is not as smart as he is! By his own words.
Clarke:
“They are called CPL’s Hawken….and how did you fill out the application without lying? It asks if you are mentally ill. Yes, you should bow to me, because I am much, much smarter than you buddie.”
It’s called a CCW…. as well, Clarke, as I have previously demonstrated.
“You squint at a gnat and swallow a camel”… to quote Christ.
All of us poor, conservative idiots should seriously consider bowing to Clarke and the radical left. NOT!
johnclarke on January 14 at 11:53 a.m.
“Just so all of you know how wise Clarke is,,,, you should all know, he actually trained U.S. Pilots how to survive after being shot down during his service in the USAF.
Now if that doesn’t just totally support his radical left views,,, of course not to overlook his self proclaimed, unique, exemplary, training in firearms….. then what else can one say?”
Dude, you make no sense!
Yes, bow down to me Hawken. I am your superior. Thanks for accepting the truth. And, for the last time - if you care to join down at the range you can find out if my self-proclaimed skills are real ! Odd that I never once said I was skilled, I just said I train and practice. Now, that being said I know I’m better than you. However don’t let that keep you from stepping out from behind that keyboard. IPSC shoots are Thursday and Friday.
So, anyone care to point out the radical left takeover of firearms in the US? Surely, there must be laws being proposed. They must be on the floor of the House right now?
hawken on January 14 at 12:03 p.m.
Valleyman…. As I said yesterday…. the “gloves are off.”
I repeatedly praised the President, my political opponent, only to be trashed more by the radical left.
Enough is enough! The radical left has no desire to find middle ground and reason. So be it.
Your attempted character assignation of me is of no importance to me…. Nor is your lukewarm, middle of the road, I agree with both sides approach.
In fact, who appointed you the voice of “reason” on this string? You’re sounding a bit like Clarke. Self appointed are you?
Having said all of that, your opinion is no less valid than anyone else who posts on this string.
Our nation is involved in an ideological, civil war, locally and nationally. If you don’t understand that, neither I nor anyone else can help you.
johnclarke on January 14 at 12:10 p.m.
Help us understand Hawky ! Show us the evidence of the radical left assault on gun rights. Please enlighten us oh mighty Hawken ! We await your leadership.
richie on January 14 at 12:10 p.m.
A 10 round clip law is not even worth discussing, let alone make it a law. Four 10 round clips and the total time it would take to change them out (seconds) is far deadlier than one 33 round clip. Thats if you could keep the illegal clip out of a criminals hands. So the clip ban makes no sense, based on that alone.
valleyman on January 14 at 12:12 p.m.
I’m sorry hawken, but you’re acting nuts…
I’m merely trying to get you all to dialogue a little more politely… but since that doesn’t work, and since now I’ve become the target of your unrequited rage when I agree with your viewpoint just not your delivery, I suppose you want my silence?
Debate is not the sole right of liberals, conservatives, or moderates. It is the right of all. If you can’t be civil, you have no place in our society…
Saying the gloves are off only means you don’t care enough about your fellow man to engage with him in the true mark of freedom - the civil discourse…
Take your ranting elsewhere please… I value my country too much to see people like you trash her greatness through a lack of courtesy to your fellow Americans…
hawken on January 14 at 12:12 p.m.
Clarke…. I understand that I am a threat to you and your radical left world view. In fact, I have “distinguished expert” awards that go back for years…..
My weapon of choice is a Glock 4O S&W. The ammo designed by the FBI as I would think you would know,,,, being the self proclaimed firearms expert that you are.
Having said that, I have nothing to prove to you at the range. It’s a juvenile challenge. The pencil is more powerful than the pistol.
Besides, if I were to meet you on the range and out shoot you, you would only misrepresent the outcome as you do regularly here on this blog…. It’s the common practice of the radical left to do that.
So,,,, I’ll stick with the pencil (keyboard in these modern times) and let you continue to brag about your firearm skills.
spokanecougar on January 14 at 12:13 p.m.
I have kind of stopped commenting to stories on here because of how you get attacked, called names, belittled, berated, degraded and basically made to feel inferior to others and stupid by people who don’t share your view. instead of coming up with legit talking points people like Hawken tend to resort to name calling and acting like babies fighting on a playground. How does calling people names and saying people are radical leftist or radical conservatives have ANYTHING to do with this conversation?
Sad to see in the month or so since I have stop posting that things don’t change on here. Its also to bad that there are actually a few people on here who want to debate the facts of the stories without falling into little baby political fighting and name calling gets overshadowed by a few select people, and you people know who are you that is ruining these threads for everyone.
hawken on January 14 at 12:15 p.m.
valleyman Not at all do I want your silence…. I have never ask that anyone be silent on this blot,,,, unlike the radical left has done to me and Daisy…. also a conservative…. and Juan Williams whom they fired because would not stick to the radical left talking points.
No, no, no, I am not asking for your silence. I’m just not willing to give the radical left quarter as you seem willing to do. Nothing more.
hawken on January 14 at 12:22 p.m.
spokanecougar on January 14 at 12:13 p.m.
I have kind of stopped commenting to stories on here because of how you get attacked, called names, belittled, berated, degraded and basically made to feel inferior to others and stupid by people who don’t share your view. instead of coming up with legit talking points people like Hawken tend to resort to name calling and acting like babies fighting on a playground. How does calling people names and saying people are radical leftist or radical conservatives have ANYTHING to do with this conversation?
Now that you on the radical left are getting the same kind of return fire that you’ve been dishing out for decades,,,, now it’s too hot in the kitchen….?
Or, isn’t it that your radical left views are being exposed more than you are accustomed to?
Defend this…. which I need to post on the next box… too long here.
valleyman on January 14 at 12:23 p.m.
Perhaps Benjamin Frankling said it best:
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man. ”
hawken on January 14 at 12:23 p.m.
Spokanecougar… here’s the following up I mentioned above….
Defend this from the radical left:
The Real Radio Hatemongers
Left-Wing Radio Hosts’ Track Record of Vile and Vicious Rhetoric
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2010/RealRadioHatemongers/ExecSumm.aspx
The so-called “news” media have spent much of the past two decades demonizing the rhetoric of conservative radio talk show hosts as mean-spirited, divisive or a menace to civil discourse. But these same journalists — who gleefully castigate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other conservatives — are silent about the vile and vicious rhetoric that spews from the Left’s leading radio talk show hosts.
Since late 2007, the Media Research Center has collected numerous examples of the outrageousness of left-wing radio hosts. And, unlike the Left — which attempted to smear Rush Limbaugh with phony quotes — readers can find an audio or video of every one of these quotes posted at our Web site: www.MRC.org.
This report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. Among the lowlights:
# Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” (Ed Schultz)
# Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” (Mike Malloy)
# Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?…When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!…Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” (Montel Williams)
# Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps….This is an evil bitch from Hell.” (Mike Malloy)
# Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” (Mike Malloy)
# Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” (Ed Schultz)
# Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” (Mike Malloy)
# Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” (Montel Williams)
If the establishment media were really interested in cleansing the airwaves of hateful rhetoric, they would not confine their criticism to conservative hosts. Instead, they would — and they must — make an equal effort to expose the nastiness that runs rampant on left-wing talk radio. Unless and until they do, they are participating in an act of journalistic hypocrisy.
Read more: http://thehuffingtonriposte.blogspot.com/2010/08/hate-speech-spews-forth-from.html#ixzz1B2j7mF00
addyh on January 14 at 12:24 p.m.
I couldn’t agree more spokanecougar - I am shutting down comments on this thread. I have work to do and can’t keep up with all the “flag as inappropriate” messages that go hand-in-hand with the name-calling.
Addy Hatch, city editor
misjustice on January 14 at 12:24 p.m.
Lol!
Juan Williams?
Everyone drink!
; )
valleyman on January 14 at 12:26 p.m.
Another Franklin quote worth reading:
“Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.”
hawken on January 14 at 12:34 p.m.
Valleyman…. Here’s one for your consideration:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
johnclarke on January 14 at 12:36 p.m.
SpokaneCougar, Hawken has bowed down to me and affirmed my superiority. Even though he has declined to step from behind his keyboard and demonstrate his skills with his .40 FBI ammo (which we all know was invented for girls and sissy types) you must respect his surrender.
Since the pencil is mightier than your FBI gun, Hawken the inferior, please lead us to the assault on gun rights. Where are the radical left wing laws? Are they in the House right now? I mean, the title of this article is “Few back tougher gun laws” yet you insist there is a radical left wing assault on your and your FBI gun. Can you offer some proof, or should we simply trust you?
(This is normally when Hawken tries to insult me or change the subject)