Third Party & Independents Archives

Hanging up the "Kick Me!" sign




Where is the logic in puting a sign in your window saying guns are not welcome?
Greg Gutfeld, I love this guy! He can’t understand the logic of anti-gun nuts either.

Robbers ignore sign, rob ‘gun-free’ restaurant at gunpoint

Why not make a sign that says ‘robbers welcome”?

I'm not going to focus on the the utter stupidity of advertising the vulnerability of your employees and patrons. I think that's obvious to reasonable thinking adults who don't have an agenda.

No, I'm going to focus on the bias the MSM exibits when it involves guns and their portrayal of guns in the media.

Media Silent as Guns Used to Save at Least Seven Lives Since May 25

As mainstream media outlets continue to support gun control by focusing on the three persons Elliot Rodgers shot to death, they have not bothered reporting that guns have been used to save at least seven lives since May 25.

Repeating the horrific results, day after day, hour after hour, of criminals using firearms to kill and injure innocent, defenseless people, the MSM, for no other reason than to promote gun control, ignores the thousands of instances where legal gun owners defend themselves and their loved ones against these same criminals the media glorifies.

Others, who's lives have been saved by having access to a firearm, have to resort to facebook pages and their own websites to get their story out.

Read the Cato Institute's paper: Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes -- murders, rapes, assaults, robberies -- are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.
This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.

There are many more instances of good done with firearms than there are instances of bad, but you won't see the good in the MSM. The bias, boot licking, anti-gun nuts in the MSM control what is seen and heard and that results in the domination of terror and tragedy. Terror and tragedy used to promote a one-sided picture of what those who plan to dominate this nation want, gun control.


Guns Save Life's Mission statement:

To promote and educate the youth of America in the use of firearms and gun safety.

To educate the population regarding the safe use of firearms and the history of firearms as they shaped our country from the pioneers through various wars to the present.

To promote and encourage shooting sports available to all who wish to enjoy their benefits by offering hunter safety and marksmanship programs.

To encourage the building of public shooting facilities to further educate the general population and those in politics who lack the knowledge of safe use of firearms and their importance to the well-being of the general public.


Many, many more people are still alive today because law abiding citizens practice their 2nd amendment right. It should be said the tragedy and terror that is portrayed in the MSM can be attributed to the ill conceived notion that fewer guns equal a safer environment. What has been proven time and time again is that law abiding citizens who carry weapons for self defense, and the people around them, are safer than if the anti-gun nuts got what they wanted and banned those weapons.

It's obvious, no guns allowed equals robbers welcome. What we really need is a non-bias, objective MSM when it comes to the issue of gun control and the 2nd amendment.

Posted by Weary_Willie at June 3, 2014 6:07 PM
Comments
Comment #378987

Let’s say you had ‘Weary Willie’s Pizza’, a fine trattoria of, say, Italian specialties, now would you want locals going in there with sidearms and rifles? Really? You want locals perusing the place with snubbies on their belts? Would this hurt customership? This is your place of business, it is private property.

Secondly, would everyone think they are a cop if they did this? Trying to see where they can make citizen arrests where they can? This is private property—would you want that on your private property that you rent and or lease?

Everyone wants to be a superhero, and X-man or a robocop—do we want that on our private property?

Posted by: simpleheaded at June 4, 2014 9:45 AM
Comment #378988

Thirdly, does that exhibit “family-friendliness” and “family values” to allow those sorts of obscure shennanigans on your private property?

Posted by: simpleheaded at June 4, 2014 9:54 AM
Comment #378989

WIllie, how does the media “glorify” criminals?

Posted by: simpleheaded at June 4, 2014 9:58 AM
Comment #378991

When I purchased my sidearm, a Smith and Wesson 9mm, the store I went to had 3 salesmen. Every one of them had a pistol on their belt. My first thought was of the safety afforded the store and the customers of that store. My first thought when seeing the armed salesmen was, “This place isn’t going to get robbed!” I did not run from the store, quivering in fear of the weapons being carried by the salesmen.

Your second question assumes every gun carrying person is an irresponsible hothead looking for trouble. Most people carrying weapons don’t even have them in sight. They aren’t ever displayed. Much like the wallet. It is used when it is needed, but always present in the event it is needed. Does everyone who carries a wallet go looking for something to spend money on? Doh! Ok, leave my ex out of this.

You say “Everyone wants to be a superhero.” I think that shows how the media has effected your thought process concerning the use of firearms and the people who carry them. If you took the time to ask, you would find very few who would want to be in a situation where they would have to use their weapon.

“Obscure shenanigans”, again only demonstrates how the media has effected your thought process. You are taking the media’s portrayal of isolated incidents as the norm. People who carry assault weapons on their backs will eventually find them inconvenient and hopefully replace them with a concealed sidearm that will not be noticed. Those who carry assault weapons portrayed in the news are making a point. They will, most likely, not continue to do so.

The media glorifies criminals by focusing on them constantly for exorbitant amounts of time. Over and over again we see their faces splashed on the tv screen with the graphic description of their crimes. When compared to the amount of time spent on the victims and their lives, their accomplishments, their hopes and aspirations, the criminal takes the cake. What are the names of the Ted Bundy’s victims. I just pulled that name out of my hat, but I can’t do the same for his victims. What about Jeffery Dalmer? Who were his victims? What did Elliot Rogers’ victims do for a living? The media made these criminal’s household celebrities known to everyone, yet you do a search on his name and the victims are known as “seven people” or “six people” or “three people”. The media glorifies criminals to add to the terror and tragedy in their effort to bias the public against the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 10:54 AM
Comment #378992

Simple the problem is that some of the people in Willie’s pizza shop already have weapons to include guns. Criminals like to eat pizza too and usually don’t mind breaking several laws at once.

Hec, if Willie’s pizza shack was located in North Carolina as the Pitt then NC is an “open carry” State and you could already see snubbies on the belt. I work in NC however, and have never seen an open carry situation so I don’t think it’s such a harm to business.

Posted by: George in SC at June 4, 2014 10:56 AM
Comment #378994

Simple

I visit places where rifles can be seen hanging in vehicles and slung over shoulders. It is not uncommon to see sidearms. They do not see themselves as cops or superheros either. “Customership” has not been harmed one bit.
All of that is nothing but the fear that has been conditioned into you.

“Thirdly, does that exhibit “family-friendliness” and “family values” to allow those sorts of obscure shennanigans on your private property?

It exhibits the individual right to keep and bear arms, and the long gone right to run ones private business how one wishes.

In my opinion, those who purposely instill unrational fear of the 2nd Amendment into people for political gain and ideological dreams, are the ones to be wary of.

Posted by: kctim at June 4, 2014 11:44 AM
Comment #378996

If I see a person carrying a gun I will leave the area immediately, call 911, and let the police deal with them.

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2014 12:08 PM
Comment #378997

Was this you, phx8?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 12:21 PM
Comment #378998

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fp5E2oj4

Here you go, phx8!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 12:24 PM
Comment #378999

I guess you didn’t here about the guy shopping in a grocery store. He reached up for a can on a top shelf and exposed his concealed pistol. Another customer saw it and called 911. When the man left the grocery store the police shot him in the chest.

Unintended consequences, yes? No, stupid, paraniod people.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 12:29 PM
Comment #379001

If I see a person carrying a gun, I also would leave immediately. I am not sure about calling 911 though, these people are very strange and have a warped sense of justice. If they found out I did something like that I would fear for my well being. Not against guns myself, just don’t need them and would like to see more restrictions on them and the ability of people to procure them.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 4, 2014 12:41 PM
Comment #379002

You think this irrational fear of people carrying a weapon isn’t generated by the media’s incessant display of violence?

When was the last time, or how many times have you eye-witnessed gun violence personally, to justify this quivering in fear?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 12:56 PM
Comment #379003

WW,
A couple people were shot dead in a mall not far from where I live. It did not receive a lot of media attention because the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary happened soon after. There is nothing irrational about that. It happened.

I understand a person might keep a gun at home for self-defense. I understand people might use a rifle to hunt. But just because a person has a right to bear arms does not mean they should carry their weapons any and everywhere, especially not in public arenas, in stores, walking down a busy city street, and so on- especially if the gun is a semi-automatic handgun or an assault rifle or whatever. There is no justification for it, no good reason, and plenty of bad things can happen as a result. Those kinds of guns are for killing people, and serve no other purpose. We have police to protect us from the bad guys. I am not about to trust some random stranger or gun-humper to do the same, especially when they already show such colossally bad judgment in the first place.

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2014 1:21 PM
Comment #379004

Where were the police in the two instances you cite, phx8? You insist everyone depend on the police exclusively for their protection. Why didn’t your plan work in those two instances you cite? So far, in your own personal experience, your plan to rely on the police to protect the people has failed 100% of the time.

Please click on the Cato Institute paper link to read about when private citizens have thwarted criminals like the ones you refer to. Perhaps, if you think rationally about it, you can see the logic of a legally armed citizenry protecting itself instead of relying on an after-the-fact response from police.

In most instances you would not have to quiver in fear of people walking down the street with weapons exposed. The most effective weapon is the weapon concealed. The threat of a concealed weapon being available will also protect people who choose not to carry a weapon. The opportunity for weapons to be available is as much a deterrent as one that actually is present. Statistics show this to be true.

Would you wear a sign on your back saying you are unarmed?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 1:46 PM
Comment #379005

No quivering here, just a genuine respect for the violence a gun can cause and a wonderment of what kind of person it takes to display a weapon that they know may cause others to be concerned or have fears.

One thing I have asked people that I know that advocate for CC, open carry or any of the rest. Have you ever had a gun drawn on you or have you ever had to draw a gun on someone? They have all answered no to both questions, maybe I just haven’t met the right person yet but I don’t frequently look for them either. I have had a weapon drawn on me and have had to draw a weapon on someone. Anyone who has had either of those happen has a totally different understanding of guns and the meaning of the use of them. No I will not take questions on the circumstances of my encounters.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 4, 2014 2:09 PM
Comment #379007

Is that another one of your “You have to believe me because I say so” scenarios?

I have to wonder, since you don’t need weapons, how you managed to draw one on someone.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 2:45 PM
Comment #379008

Didn’t say I have never had weapons. Have you ever had to draw a gun on someone or have you ever had a gun drawn on you?

Posted by: Speak4all at June 4, 2014 2:49 PM
Comment #379012

I’ve had the misfortune of being in the same room when a person pulled a gun and threatened another for his slander against him. Fortunately he was not a murderer and the incident resulted in the loss of a light bulb and a hole in the wall.

I can say that reaction to the incident was non-existant. Nobody reacted throughout the entire time the shooter was there. The lack of training to respond to a situation was to blame for the lack of reaction. Even if another weapon was present the lack of training for that situation would have rendered that weapon unthought of and unused.

There is something to be said for the training of people who commit to carrying a weapon. It only makes sense. Training conditions the person to react in the correct way. It’s much better than a panic driven reaction.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 3:35 PM
Comment #379013

Well I hate to inform you of this but that is not the same thing. The gun was not pointed at you directly and threateningly, believe me there is a difference.

I was held at gun point during a robbery. It ended well for me because I surrendered what they wanted and really wouldn’t have used a gun if I had one at the time. Besides there was a second individual that was holding a knife. Just wanted to get away and let them have what they wanted.

The last gun I owned was a nickel plated long barrel .357 magnum. The sight of it alone would stop most trouble makers in their tracks. Suffice it to say the last time I drew that on someone I thought long and hard about how the outcome could have been very bad for both of us. It was during a provoked attack. I got rid of the gun not long after that and have not felt a need to have one since then. Some of us live and learn.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 4, 2014 4:02 PM
Comment #379015

I should add that these two occurrences happened a long time ago. I have been living gun-free for over 35 years and enjoying every minute of it.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 4, 2014 5:08 PM
Comment #379017

You are fortunate, Speak4all. Please read the Cato Institute’s paper describing how weapons have saved lives.

It says weapons have detered criminals over 2 million times a year. Can you imagine what this country would be like if only criminals had guns?

You know the government cannot stop criminals from getting guns. If it could they would not have guns now. Period. Full Stop!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 5:24 PM
Comment #379020

You can imagine enough for both of us although I don’t particularly care for your imagination run rampant stuff.

You are correct, I am fortunate. I am certain that guns have saved lives but that number is far out weighed by the number of lives lost through the proliferation of guns and gun violence we have seen in the last 30 years.

Well, using your reasoning we shouldn’t have laws against drunk driving. People will just drive drunk anyway, we can’t stop it. How about any of the other laws preventing people from doing very bad things. Very bad things still happen so why have any of those laws too. I am very tired of hearing about “criminals have guns, we can’t stop them”. No we can’t but we could drop the number of guns that are available with some simple, helpful laws and regulations.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 4, 2014 5:49 PM
Comment #379022

What part of criminals don’t obey laws don’t you understand?

And the all or nothing approach to debate is getting old. What happened to those shades of gray your side is so fond of?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 7:06 PM
Comment #379034

Speaks

“I am certain that guns have saved lives but that number is far out weighed by the number of lives lost through the proliferation of guns and gun violence we have seen in the last 30 years.”

One of the problems with that statement is that the left is targeting those not responsible for the gun violence. They are targeting the people who have not experienced gun violence, despite being surrounded by guns their whole lives.

“No we can’t but we could drop the number of guns that are available with some simple, helpful laws and regulations.”

What regulations, that we do not already have, could do that AND still respect the 2nd Amendment? I’m not saying nothing can be done, but so far all that is being offered deals with cosmetics, oppressive background checks that unenforceable and outright bans.

Posted by: kctim at June 5, 2014 9:19 AM
Comment #379035

What don’t you understand about the fact that because criminals don’t obey laws that this should obviate the need for laws? That’s not how it works. The law is enforced and if criminals break that law they are incarcerated, charged, tried and sentenced. No shades of gray here. Just would like to see more rule of law regarding access to guns.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 9:23 AM
Comment #379037

kct
Regulations that work. If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. I don’t hold the same beliefs that you do about the 2nd Amendment. I believe it was meant to guide a well regulated militia. That does not exist today and should not be applied to every citizen in our country.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 9:39 AM
Comment #379038

Any more laws would infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. There are already laws on the books that prohibit criminals from getting guns. Obviously, the laws as they are cannot be enforced. Even more laws will also not be inforced. Given this fact, access to guns by law abiding citizens is the logical and necessary countermeasure.

Were the media not brainwashing the masses with gun control propaganda at every instance, many more people would understand that a free society needs to protect itself by occasionally using force. Just as a nation must go to war to protect itself so does the law abiding citizen. A free nation does not disarm itself and then wait for it’s neighbors to come to their defence. Poland did just that against Germany and Poland ceased to exist as a nation because of it. So has many citizens disarmed themselves and have died waiting for police to come to their rescue.

Police don’t carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves. Citizens have the right to defend themselves also. More laws are not going to make that right any more valid. More laws will only restrict and deminish that right.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 9:53 AM
Comment #379039

Speaks, “regulations that work” doesn’t cut it. Work at what? Relieving your fear of guns or actually curtailing crimes commited with guns?

People still want to re-instate the AWB although there is no evidence that suggest doing so would curtail crime and ten years worth of history showing it won’t do anything. Bayonet mounts and pistol grips were never the problem. Are you willing to send armed police officers into my house and into the house of my neighbors and take all of my firearms? Do you want to lock up every criminal ever caught with a gun for the rest of their life? Because it would probably take those types of regulations to actually work given 300m + firearms already in country with another 16m to 18m being purchased annually.

I’ll drop the 2nd Amendment qualification and ask you the same question: What are the “simple, helpful laws and regulations” you would propose?

Posted by: George in SC at June 5, 2014 10:02 AM
Comment #379040

Laws that restrict the citizenry from protecting themselves do not regulate a militia well.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

I hear public service anouncements on the radio for Selective Service enrollment of all males when they turn 18. This law was put into effect when the draft was discontinued. This constitutes a militia made up of these 18 year old males. They have a right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 10:13 AM
Comment #379041

George
I have no fear of guns. Read previous comments in this thread and you will see that this fear you refer to is rooted in your fear that I will have the police come and get you and your guns, take some deep breaths. That is not happening no matter how your fevered imagination instructs you that it is. Regulations that work and can curtail gun violence (the numbers you cite should indicate that there is a proliferation of guns and that hasn’t really helped either has it?) is what I would like to see.

ww
I am not brainwashed. You can see by my previous comments that I, up until 35 years ago, did own a gun. I was not convinced by anyone but myself to get rid of my gun for my reasons. Your references to freedom does not trump my desire to see better gun regulation. We are each able to hold our own opinion. I will continue to support policy and politicians that work towards the goals I would like to see. You are free to do the same but not by my authority. It is your right as a citizen of this country.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 10:37 AM
Comment #379042

Wait for it! Speak4all will now make the argument; since the government isn’t doing it’s job, to regulate the militia well, the 2nd amendment no longer applies.

Perfect excuse for the second American civil war, Government incompetence. Everyone understands it, everyone believes it, why not use it to the government’s advantage, right Speak4all?

Never let a crisis go to waste!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 10:38 AM
Comment #379043

ww
Hogwash, that is the dumbest description of a well regulated militia that I have read, at least for today.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 10:39 AM
Comment #379045

ww
Okay you have gone off the deep end again. Accusing me of nonsense. This has morphed from a disagreement into you and George accusing me of wanting to come into your houses and take your guns. I am not sure I can participate in this nonsense.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 10:41 AM
Comment #379046

Wasamata? Can’t take a joke? Ok, I apologise.

My link to the definition of a militia is to a reputable source.

Selective Service replaced the draft. How is that hogwash?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 11:19 AM
Comment #379047

Speaks

In order to “try, try again,” we must first identify the current regulations that are not working, and the new regulations that would be part of trying again. If you think we need new regulations because our current ones don’t work, you should be able to explain them so they can be honestly discussed.

I am not concerned with how you wish to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment, it is a forgone conclusion that the left wishes to repeal or reinterpret it, so it really isn’t worth debating.

Posted by: kctim at June 5, 2014 11:22 AM
Comment #379048

Because they are not a well regulated militia, simple no? Selective Service does not resemble a well regulated militia in any form. You are grasping at straws to try to fill your straw man argument. I won’t contribute.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 11:23 AM
Comment #379049

Speaks

O.k. we agree that the goal is not to just take guns but to actually curtail gun violence in the U.S. Again, what are the simple regulations that would help us meet this goal?

Posted by: George in SC at June 5, 2014 11:28 AM
Comment #379050

kct
I will leave the explanation and formulation of regulations to the people elected to office to do that.

We agree, I am not concerned with how you wish to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment either.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 11:28 AM
Comment #379051

George
See my reply to kct. I will leave that to people duly elected and consigned to accomplish that.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 11:30 AM
Comment #379052

kctim and George, Dungeons and Dragons has a personality called Chaotic Neutral. I believe Speak4all has this personality. He will not commit to any sort of position by defending it. He expects us to accept what he says simply because he states it.

I cannot understand what Selective Service is for if not the establishment of a militia. It replaced the draft. It is there to compile a group of able-bodied men. That group of men is going to be used to defend this country in case of a war serious enough to reinstate the draft. Selective Service is a militia.

kctim and George, the first thing needed is an honest discussion about gun violence, gun ownership, and the current state of affairs in this country. To have an honest discussion we need the MSM to participate honestly. So far it is not. It is simply a propaganda arm of the anti-gun nuts that want to abolish the 2nd amendment.

I thought this thread would be a start. You have to identify the problem before you can solve it. One of the major obstacles to an honest discussion is the MSM. The obvious fear of guns portrayed by phx8 and Speak4all demonstrate how the discussion is being dominated. It is fear that controls the debate now, not rational thinking.

When you have children in elementary school chastised and punished for chewing a pop tart and then noticing it looks like a gun, or asking a child to draw a picture of what a cloud reminds him of and then punishing him for drawing a gun, you have fear dominating the discussion. This fear is being instilled in our children, not to protect the 2nd amendment but to abolish it.

It is the MSM that is providing this fear on a daily basis. Without the pros of gun ownership being displayed alongside the cons the debate becomes propaganda, not discussion.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 12:31 PM
Comment #379053

ww
And I say again. I have no fear of guns and I am getting really tired of having to tell you that. The only fear being ginned up here is by you claiming that someone wants to take your guns. I don’t want to do that. My disagreement with you does not constitute any interpretation of what I get from news outlets or punditry. It comes from a firm belief that I do not fear guns nor do I need a gun but I would like to see a lessening of gun violence in my country. This seems to upset you and make you unable to understand my disagreement. I will leave the formulation of regulations to the people I try to elect to office. You on the other hand seem to think that you can control that by comments on this blog. You are woefully incorrect but I support your desire to try to do that however futile it may seem. Oh and I have no idea of what your reference to Dungeons and Dragons means and I do not know what that is except I think it some game played by children.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 12:44 PM
Comment #379054

Have you ever considered the possibility that gun violence isn’t the problem it’s made up to be in the media? Sure, some cities controlled by Democratics with the most stringent gun control laws have a preponderance of gun related crime, but for the most part, most people don’t experience gun violence on a daily basis except for in the media.

Perhaps your irrational opinion of gun ownership is simply a product of the MSM being dominated by anti-gun nuts.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 12:55 PM
Comment #379055

ww
And again my opinion of gun violence and my stand on guns is not, I repeat is not, attributable to news outlets or punditry. It is my own and I will stand by it and defend my stance. TeaPartyics don’t really control much so I can’t reference anything that they exert influence over other than your rabid rants and their content. Please read what I type and not what you want it to mean. I may read more comments on this thread but I don’t expect to be able to comment myself. I need to start looking at Belmont and pick a third horse to go with California Chrome and Ride On Curlin’ in a trifecta box. Wish me luck, it can’t hurt.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 5, 2014 1:01 PM
Comment #379056

Good luck, Speak4all. Thanks for your input.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 1:33 PM
Comment #379057

Good luck Speaks just don’t bet against the DAP and Chrome.

Since Speaks won’t offer a solution I will WW. We need some kind of non-court based system where local law enforcement can work directly with the medical community to temporarily suspend someone’s right to arms. You’ve got more Bill of Rights issues there than you could shake a stick at, but too many people with well known mental issues have access to weapons and the current system can’t handle it in any kind of timely fashion.

The largest segment of gun death is from suicide and if we are going to reduce gun violence then we need to look at the ineffectiveness of the current background check system in identifying mental issues. When, after Sandy Hook, Diane Fienstein shows back up with the AWB instead, then you are right there’s no room for a real discussion on reducing gun violence.

Posted by: George in SC at June 5, 2014 2:04 PM
Comment #379058

I agree with a local based non-court system. A doctor, who knows his patient, will know if his patient is unstable enough not to have access to a firearm. A doctor should be able to take the responsibility of denying that access by notifying the proper authorities without fear of being sued or prosicuted for his actions. He should be relieved of his obligation to patient confidentiality when public safety is concerned before the public is in danger, not just when the public is in danger.

None of this will come to pass if the media is not going to cooperate. If the media continues to propagandize the anti-gun nut position nothing will change. Since their objective is to repeal the 2nd amendment we must concentrate on eliminating the media’s bias without being sidelined by other issues. Only when we have honest dialog about the fundimental issue, ie. the 2nd amendment and the public’s right to bear arms, can we move on to issues that are not the norm, ie. mentally ill, criminals.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 3:00 PM
Comment #379059

Well Speaks, you can’t say I didn’t try to have an honest discussion with you.

“I will leave the explanation and formulation of regulations to the people elected to office to do that.”

In that case, the people elected to office have addressed the issue, it is what it is, and all is fine just the way it is. No change needed.

“We agree, I am not concerned with how you wish to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment either.”

You probably should be though, seeing how you currently live under the laws that abide by it. Heck, even President Obama, whom you seem to have a strange devotion to, has said he see’s it as an individual right.

Oh, and I will join Weary in wishing you good luck my friend.

Posted by: kctim at June 5, 2014 3:53 PM
Comment #379061

I imagine that the idiot who walks into a gun store imagining they could rob it dropped off the idiot tree not far off from the folks who drop lit matches in a bucket of gasoline out of curiosity. I’d also imagine that the person who would object to guns would probably not show up in the gun store in the first place to get disturbed by the weaponry.

I’d also think that a person walking into a country store and seeing a gun on the back wall of the establishment behind the store owner might be concerned by it, but would be reassured by the fact that this is the owner, and shooting customers would be bad for business.

Of course, with many businesses, they take note of that, and keep the weapons hidden. That’s a private choice on their part, and this is a central part of what gun rights activists on the extreme aren’t registering.

For the most part, your odds of getting robbed are pretty low. Where they aren’t, it will tend to be the owner, the host if you will, who possesses the weapon. Other customers might be concealed carry, but then that typically means handguns unless somebody’s wearing a long coat or has the rifle or shotgun down a pant-leg.

When it’s a customer who walks in with a gun, it represents uncertainty for everybody. Unless we’re talking a rural establishment where everybody knows everybody, we’re typically talking suburban or urban locations where this is practically impossible. The person with a gun isn’t merely an object of suspicion because of those damn gun control people, they’re an object of suspicion because there’s a special class of customers who come in with guns called “robbers”, and another called “insane mass murderers” Given the fact you don’t know that person, that you can’t know the good guys from the bad guys, the presence of people with guns is hardly reassuring.

I know YOU and THEY think it SHOULD be reassuring, but unless you are a store owner in a place where it’s culturally normal to carry a weapon, or a police officer, nobody has good reason to trust not only your intentions, but your COMPETENCE as well. An incompetently shot bullet can kill an innocent person just as dead as a competently, deliberately shot one. Bullets operate by the tender mercies of the laws of physics. The good intentions don’t matter once the bullet is moving down the barrel.

This whole open carry controversy represents an extreme example of naiveté on the part of the gun rights activist. Guns are deadly weapons, and this figures into attitudes on both sides. The Gun Rights people, though, have gotten so locked into their own world in some parts of their movement, that they don’t even acknowledge that their guns are just as scary to strangers as a criminal or killer’s weapons.

The NRA had it right the first time when they washed their hands of these people. They at least had some inkling of just how bloody out there the people were making them look. Unfortunately, though, they’re dealing with the same problem the rest of the right has landed themselves in: They encouraged political purity, discouraged restraint, and now that the brakes have failed and everything’s heading downhill at top speed, they end up in a cowardly kind of tug of war, where they half-heartedly try to convince their extremists both to remain part of the movement, and to pull back from their embarrassing, off-putting behavior. One second, they seem to acknowledge the outside perspective, the way things are going over like a lead balloon, the next they’re racing to patch things up with the extremists.

It’s a tug of war Conservatives can’t win. They will lose one or the other. They hope that people will just trend towards them over time, but unfortunately, that’s not really happening. The opposite, in fact.

Put another way, these gun rights people have lost. They’ve taken things too far. But having canonized taking things to extremes as the only way to act with any kind of integrity, having dismissed compromise as cowardice, they’ve got all these people who really don’t want to hear it, who feel betrayed, when the folks who know how these things will likely turn out start pulling back on them.

So, having had this brief tap on the brakes, and this rare moment of clarity (one they lacked for much of the Obama Gun-grabber paranoid psychosis), they probably got a serious backdraft of complaints that they were betraying the cause, and heeding that, recanted. Of course, since they were right the first time, and the open carry demonstrations will go over badly, they’ll likely lose more mainstream Americans as supporters of gun rights. I mean, really, it’s easier to support lethal weapons in comparatively safe, domesticated places, under your control or the control of people you trust, than out in the wild.

So, the NRA will have a choice after that. Try and redeem its image, pour on more rhetoric, or double down on the gun politics. The first might cause the gun rights advocates to split off, undermining the power and influence of the conservative establishment lobbyist group. The second… Well, you can talk your way out of some things, but these days, the rationalization seems to be digging the NRA deeper. The third choice just leads to more alienation from the mainstream.

The NRA seems well on its way to rendering firearm ownership mainly an enthusiast’s pastime, something for people who own ten guns, rather than for individuals who only need one or two.

To a certain extent, that’s actually defeating the purpose of the amendment, which was to encourage widespread competence in wielding weaponry, something that was seen as necessary in a time where local militias were the first line of defense, and a national standing army wasn’t yet the object of our military policy.

I mean, not much of what modern day gun enthusiasts label as the original threat that the framers wanted to face actually existed at the time, post Revolutionary war. Federal law enforcement had not yet developed to the extent it has now. Heck, local police weren’t even that substantial of a presence, modern police departments and sheriff’s departments still a ways in the future. Additionally, you didn’t have much of a standing army after the Revolutionary war, as the young nation had neither the resources nor the need to keep that many soldiers trained and ready. Not until the Cold War would we maintain a large military to be paranoid about!

It was Spain, England, and France that would lead to the calling out of our armed forces, with the old amateur militias gradually giving way to the professional ones that would eventually fight the Civil War.

I don’t think it would be entirely off the mark for people to learn how to use firearms, for the NRA to go back to being less a guns-rights organization, and more a gun-responsibility organization. But I think that might end up being unlikely. It may be up to some other group to seek that alternate mode, with the NRA shrinking its way back into the ranks of the gun nuts, or getting replaced once it loses its taste for political extremism by another organization.

Either way, I think the Gun Right’s movement, for all its temporary victories, is undermining itself, and no amount of card-stacked arguments about the benefit of guns is going to change people’s minds.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 5, 2014 5:22 PM
Comment #379062

Stephen

If you recognize the difference between rural and urban, why does the anti gun movement try to govern rural areas with the same fears they govern urban areas?

Why are areas with high gun ownership rates and virtually no crime promoted as the problem, while areas with lower gun ownership rates and higher crime are ignored?

Posted by: kctim at June 5, 2014 5:56 PM
Comment #379064

Daughty wrote; “An incompetently shot bullet can kill an innocent person just as dead as a competently, deliberately shot one. Bullets operate by the tender mercies of the laws of physics. The good intentions don’t matter once the bullet is moving down the barrel.”

LOL…his hubris is exceeded only by his boring tirades.

He writes; “Guns are deadly weapons…” Duh! So is a scalpel in the hands of an abortion doctor.

He writes; “Put another way, these gun rights people have lost.” Hmmm…lost their constitutional rights by exercising them?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 5, 2014 6:47 PM
Comment #379066

Why do people think anyone with a gun is a threat to them? Is it because every time they see someone with a gun they are shooting someone else? No, in fact, most of the time they don’t even know that person has a gun. It is concealed, out of sight, out of mind.

No, the reason people get paranoid when they see a gun is because they see what is portrayed by the media every day, every hour, day after day, hour after hour. The media will focus on the bad and purposely ignore the good.

Take your example of the NRA as a typical case of media bias. What do we know of the NRA except for what the media is showing us. The only time I hear about the NRA is when they are being described as the villains in favor of people shooting other people. Not once have I seen a news story about how the NRA teaches people gun safety, or competitive marksmanship, or any of the other positive benefits of gun ownership. Even the example given above of the NRA’s actions have them painting themselves in a bad light

It’s pure and simple, the media has poisoned the public against any type of support for gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. That poison atmosphere makes it impossible to have an intelligent and rational discussion of the 2nd amendment and gun ownership.

The media needs to be called out on it. An unbiased effort must be made to include news stories about people’s successful use of guns to counter violence. Gun violence as a whole must be put in perspective. The obvious effect of gun control laws on crime in Democratic controlled cities compared to the effects CC permits have on crime must be openly displayed. The stygma of gun ownership must be removed. These are the only ways we are going to be able to have a reasonable discussion about gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 5, 2014 7:01 PM
Comment #379097

“Why do people think anyone with a gun is a threat to them?”

Because that gun could kill me. Or someone else. That is the purpose for most guns: to kill a human being.

Posted by: phx8 at June 5, 2014 11:05 PM
Comment #379142

willie,

“If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.”

This quote you are touting seems to be an ammo-erotic fantasy.

If you have actually read the white paper you are citing as a source, you will find merely “scores” of documented cases, vastly different than the “tens of thousands” which is used as even your low end estimate.

If there is actual, irrefutable, documented proof of these assertions please show it to us.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 6, 2014 6:21 AM
Comment #379145


Rocky Marks, irrefutable proof would be easy to show if the MSM would set aside it’s bias and report the many instances where guns saved lives and prevented crimes from happening at all. Join me in insisting the MSM forgo it’s bias and not be a shill for the anti-gun nuts that dominate their programming.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2014 9:00 AM
Comment #379171

Speak4all


” It comes from a firm belief that I do not fear guns nor do I need a gun but I would like to see a lessening of gun violence in my country.”

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

“I don’t hold the same beliefs that you do about the 2nd Amendment. I believe it was meant to guide a well regulated militia.”

The founders did not believe gov’t was our friend, but a necessary evil. The original intent of the 2nd amend. was to give the citizens the ability to rein in the gov’t should it ever decide to ignore the limitations placed on it by the constitution. This is also the prime reason all citizens should have the ability to posses weapons that one would consider appropriate for military service such as the AR15 and AK47.

The militia was to be made up of all able bodied men who could be called on to defend the republic against ALL enemies foreign or domestic.

Posted by: dbs at June 6, 2014 8:04 PM
Comment #379172

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c-Dsg4X4Dk#t=25

Why isn’t this being taught in every school in the U.S.?

Because the people who on the receiving end of the 2nd amendment are controlling the subject matter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2014 9:08 PM
Comment #379173

But, when it’s the government marching against the citizenry in their effort to collect taxes, that’s a different story.

Everyone knows about “The Whiskey Rebellion”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2014 9:13 PM
Comment #379178

Weary,blaming the messenger er ah the media is foolish. The simple fact is most stories of someone shooting an intruder in their house or business is a local story and gets published in the local media.Mass killings make the national news and rightfully so. No conspiracy, just stories of interest to the general public.

The real problem in my opinion is how the gun nuts make themselves news by invading businesses armed with rifles to draw attention to their cause then complain about the media for reporting the story. How these same gun nuts tell us how safe they are yet shoot themselves with their own weapon or worse yet shoot others accidentally. Then we still have other gun nuts and wackos that intentionally mislead the public with misinformation, kinda like you are doing here and Jim Rubens is doing as he runs for office.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/06/jim-rubens/jim-rubens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2014 11:21 PM
Comment #379179

willie,

“Rocky Marks, irrefutable proof would be easy to show if the MSM would set aside it’s bias and report the many instances where guns saved lives and prevented crimes from happening at all.”

Irrefutable proof would be easy to show if these instances were reported at all.
The “statistics” your own source cites are the result of surveys, not recorded incedents, and in fact, your own source states these instances were most often not reported to the police. There are few, if any, recorded stastics.

That alone reduces your “facts” to mere anecdote.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 7, 2014 5:48 AM
Comment #379187

Thanks, j2t2, you’re making my point for me. Yes they are local stories only because the national media won’t report them. To say they are of no interest is obsurd. They aren’t reported in the national media because they go against the narrative that guns are evil.


Take a look at the other links in my post, Rocky Marks. They are not anecdotes.
The first story on the facebook page is of an 11 year old girl protecting herself with a shotgun. No mention of it in the national media. If the 11 year old girl was brutally raped and murdered by the criminals with the .45 they stole from the last victim they murdered it would have been on national media for days.

Why wasn’t this in the news?
Armed Woman Stops Shooter in TX

On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. This just happened folks!”

It goes toward a narrative of guns in the right hands doing good. That’s why!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2014 10:32 AM
Comment #379189
Thanks, j2t2, you’re making my point for me. Yes they are local stories only because the national media won’t report them.

No Weary I am simply saying that someone stopping an intruder in your state isn’t news to me in my state, sorry.


To say they are of no interest is obsurd. They aren’t reported in the national media because they go against the narrative that guns are evil.

Not absurd at all Weary, despite you conspiracy theory it just isn’t national news unless it is a very slow news day. It is absurd to think corporate media should report each of these incidents as if it were national news, IMHO.

Why wasn’t this in the news?

Now you are making my point Weary. A guy shooting an ex girlfriend is a local story, it happen fairly regularly. The off duty cop shooting the guy is, if you would have bothered to read the link I posted, also a fairly regular occurrence. Two dead by gunshot just isn’t national news as it happens so often, which is kinda sad isn’t it.

However a bunch of gun nuts going to the local dairy queen armed to the teeth to intentionally gain attention does get some national coverage, not much but some, Why is it you don’t address this type of foolishness by the gun nuts and 2nd amendment wackos?

Why is it you don’t complain about the lack of national coverage for the gun nut accidentally shooting themselves or others whilst preaching about how well trained they are?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2014 11:28 AM
Comment #379190

The woman stopped a mass shooting in a thearer, j2t2. No doubt about it. Her town is giving her a medal! Had she not been there the shooter would have killed many people and it would have been national news. Since she stopped him and many people were saved by the fact she had a weapon and was able to stop the guy, it goes against the narrative of the MSM and therefore not a national story.

I have also heard of people shooting themselves during the safety or training exercize. The fact that these instances make national attention goes against what you posit. It made national news because it fits the narrative of making the gun look bad. It’s called bias, j2t2.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2014 1:25 PM
Comment #379191

Weary, first of all it wasn’t a mass shooting nor do we know if it would have been. The guy targeted an ex and some employees where she worked. Certainly he could have opened fire on diners had he wanted to do so. It seems to me what you have is an attempt by the conservative media to make this something more than it is, due probably to bias on your part and the part of conservatives who would like to use this as in defense of their argument.

As far as the experts shooting themselves I didn’t see them on national news as if it were coverage of a mass killing. Are you sure this is the case?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2014 2:52 PM
Comment #379193

You’re reminding me of a skit I saw once.

A woman walks in on her husband while he was having sex with another woman. The wife is hysterical. WTF! OMG! The husband and the woman calmly disengage and get dressed. The woman leaves. When she has gone, the husband says to the wife, “What woman? I did not have sexual relations with a woman!”.

It’s called denial, j2t2. Common liberal tactic. Deny even if the truth is standing right out in the open.

You’re going to say the same about my posts. It’s a tit for tat thing now. Neither one of us are going to convince the other of anything. Thanks for trying though.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2014 4:28 PM
Comment #379197

Denial a common liberal tactic! Really Weary? SO instead of proving me wrong you come up with this silliness! You evade the issue with illogical nonsense like this… really!

Lets take a look at this claim being bantered around the conservative movement as if it were a valid issue. Breitbart in your link tell us 7 people had their life saved in four different incidents around the nation due to being armed since May25th, the day of the Santa Barbra killings. Then Breitbart whines about the “national media” not reporting each of these incidents as national news! Then the conservative propaganda machine gets in gear and starts spewing this nonsense as if it were news. Who are you kidding guys, other than yourselves, with this illogical garbage? When, Weary, when did the “national media” ever gather 4 non related non fatal incidents such as Breitbart describes around the country over two weeks and then report them as news?

The Victoria Jackson link is even more foolish Weary , yet you hang your hat on it as if it were relevant to this “national media” conspiracy. Why because it was in a theater! The only link between the mass killing in Aurora CO and this non incident is the man went into a theater after shooting his ex in a restaurant . No one was killed in the theater the fear was due to the Aurora incident 6 months earlier.

But the reality was this incident was two days after the Sandy Hook tragedy yet conservatives are angry because the “national media” didn’t cover this domestic violence incident because they are, without a shred of anything but conjecture to go on, attempting to pass this off as a good person with a gun saving the day. Yet the “national media” was still covering the Sandy Hook tragedy and so it is a conspiracy! ha, my god such logic! do I have that right Weary.

SO Weary it seems to me you need to identify the “national media” does it include Fox? You need to show some intent on the San Antonio domestic violence thing if you are going to make the pronouncement the off duty cop saved a mass murder. You should also demonstrate how in the past the “national media” did cover these separate incidents that are local news now and are now conspiring to with hold this news from the nation.
You haven’t done any of this just made some foolish illogical claims copied from movement leadership in their attempt to get you riled up at the “national media” as if it were true. Until then keep your tin foil hat on Weary, so the “national media” can’t listen to your thoughts.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2014 8:38 PM
Comment #379198

Why don’t you see any stories about guns saving the lives of people in the national media, j2t2?

Just because you don’t think they are news worthy shouldn’t disqualify them. The media has poisoned the well. The fact both you and Speak4all refer to everyone who owns a gun as whacko and nuts only makes the case.

There is a bias against guns because the benefits of guns are not being discussed in the national media.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2014 9:37 PM
Comment #379200

Weary,

It seems that the account you provided of the San Antonio theater shooting is a bit distorted. The gunman did not shoot and kill his ex or anybody else in the restaurant. She wasn’t there. He did wound a a person in the parking lot, shot at a police cruiser and wildly in the theater. He was shot and wounded by an off duty sheriff officer working security at the theater. The deputy was in uniform. Nobody was killed.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

It was reported in the media including the Huffington Post.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting_n_2315139.html

Posted by: Rich at June 7, 2014 11:04 PM
Comment #379201

Take a look at the headlines for you links, Rich!

Gunman Shoots 1 In Theater Parking Lot
Shots fired, patrons panic at San Antonio theater

These are the headlines from your media sources. All negative.

Now, using the information in your snopes link, let’s construct a positive headline.

Local security officer thwarts possible mass murder, receives medal

Quite a different take, isn’t it?

All three headlines are true. All the information in all three stories could be written exactly as they were. But, the bias towards guns bad isn’t present in my headline example.

This also shoots (no pun intended) j2t2’s rant in the butt. He says it’s not news worthy yet you have provided links to media stories making it news! The fact that no one was hurt, as you say, also discredits j2t2’s argument. I guess I have to thank you for putting his argument to bed for me.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2014 11:48 PM
Comment #379202
Why don’t you see any stories about guns saving the lives of people in the national media, j2t2?

Weary, asked and answered, once again it usually isn’t a national news story and is covered locally. Now will you respond to my questions and comments instead of diverting to other issues?


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/what-guns-saves-lives-day_b_4107395.html


Just because you don’t think they are news worthy shouldn’t disqualify them.

No one has said that Weary, you have limited the “newsworthy” aspect to national for stories that are local. The NRA magazine “rifleman” has been pointing these types of stories out for years. So has the local outlets of many “national media” corporations. You and the conservative propaganda machine have decided to blame the messenger for not making a national issue out of a local story.


The media has poisoned the well.

BS Weary. The facts are the facts, and guns take more lives than they save. Trying to blame the “national media” for poisoning the well is IMHO a lame attempt to bully the media into whitewashing the issue.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html

The fact both you and Speak4all refer to everyone who owns a gun as whacko and nuts only makes the case.

Weary I didn’t say “everyone that owns gun” (hell I own one myself) I was just using the same terms you used to identify those that dare to differ from you on this issue.

“….and not be a shill for the anti-gun nuts that dominate their programming.”
Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2014 9:00 AM

does that therefore make my case as it was you who decided we needed to use the term “nut” when referring to those on the other side of the issue. Of course it is illogical to assume that it make my case but then that is what you are trying to tell me. Perhaps if you could use just a few facts or answer any of the questions you could come close to making a case but you seem incapable of doing anything but pointing fingers and side stepping the issues.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 8, 2014 1:00 AM
Comment #379204

I’m not going to argue with your opinion of what should and shouldn’t be a national news story.

My concern is the focus of stories in the national media concerning guns. Let’s take Rich’s examples and my response to the headlines he pointed out.

Do you have any objections to the headline I used to introduce the San Antonio story?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 8, 2014 9:43 AM
Comment #379205
This also shoots (no pun intended) j2t2’s rant in the butt. He says it’s not news worthy yet you have provided links to media stories making it news!

No it doesn’t Weary. It tells us your claim “Yes they are local stories only because the national media won’t report them.” is false. These stories don’t get the attention of an Aurora theater shooting or the Newton Massacre, and rightfully so, in the “national media”.


The fact that no one was hurt, as you say, also discredits j2t2’s argument. I guess I have to thank you for putting his argument to bed for me.

Once again Weary no it doesn’t. It tells us the “national media” has more of a perspective on what is news than these blathering conservative media outlets trying to vilify others. Why should this story have been in the “national media” for days as the Aurora shooting and Newtown massacre was?


My concern is the focus of stories in the national media concerning guns. Let’s take Rich’s examples and my response to the headlines he pointed out.

Sure, which headline is more factual? Which headline describes the content of the story accurately?

“Gunman Shoots 1 In Theater Parking Lot”, Factual-True and accurate-true.

“Shots fired, patrons panic at San Antonio theater,” exactly as quoted in story, true and true.


“Armed woman stops shooter in TX”

The story tells us one off duty woman cop in uniform performing security work at the theater stopped the shooter. Factual- kinda, accurate, not even close. Victoria should stick to comedy not writing biased headlines IMHO.

Now perhaps you can see who has poisoned the well Weary. The conservative uproar over guns saving lives is inaccurate and misleading. Blaming the media is wrong.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 8, 2014 10:56 AM
Comment #379206


It tells us the “national media” has more of a perspective on what is news than these blathering conservative media outlets trying to vilify others.

This comment only demonstrates your bigotry toward the 2nd amendment. You are insisting the bias in the media is, in your opinion, the only correct position and you discount any other as evil. That’s bias, j2t2.

Local security officer thwarts possible mass murder, receives medal
What’s not accurate about my headline, j2t2?

Quote from person hiding in the washroom

“We thought we were going to die,”

She and her weapon were employed as local security for the theater and ended the incident.
She received the Medal of Valor for her actions.

You’re ignoring my headline because you cannot bring yourself to admit it is correct and accurate. You’re ignoring it because it doesn’t contain the bias you expect from a gun related story.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 8, 2014 11:39 AM
Comment #379210
This comment only demonstrates your bigotry toward the 2nd amendment.

For not even mentioning the 2nd amendment in my comment Weary you sure seem to be able to read a lot into what was said. Perhaps that is why you fall for these non issues dreamed up by movement leaders to keep the movement followers frothing at the mouth, fearful angry and polarized by these half truths, myths misinformation and outright lies they spew.

You are insisting the bias in the media is, in your opinion, the only correct position and you discount any other as evil. That’s bias, j2t2.

Weary I am not happy with the way our free press has been corporatized but to say factual headlines are biased is what I am disagreeing with.


What’s not accurate about my headline, j2t2?

Well it is a bit sensationalized Weary as you have shown us nothing to indicate a mass murder was inevitable were it not for the off duty officer.

But lets talk about the other headlines Weary, it seems you have decided my analysis in the previous post is spot on accurate, as you haven’t taken exception to anything. These were actual headlines and the conservative headline was the least informative. You did a better job even though you had the benefit of additional information not available at the time of the actual event. Who knew the officer would receive a medal at that time?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 8, 2014 6:47 PM
Comment #379211


Weary, what kind of bias do you see in this headline?

“Shooting At Las Vegas Restaurant, Walmart Leaves 3 Dead”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/08/las-vegas-shooting_n_5470084.html

Posted by: j2t2 at June 8, 2014 7:04 PM
Comment #379212

The Las Vegas shootings- two policemen shot dead, a civilian, and then the two shooters killed themselves. Story is still developing.

It did not receive much attention, but in Seattle, a lunatic with a shotgun killed a young man, critically wounded another, and wounded one more before being disarmed by a student using pepper spray. The young victim graduated from a high school student in my area.

Accidental shootings happen all the time and receive no attention. Murder/suicides, the same. Over a third of all gun deaths are suicides, so no one is at more risk than a gun owner; next more risk- loved ones. Suicide by cop usually receive local attention, but none nationally.

A Daily Kos article lists gun tragedies that occur each week. Here are 47 from the previous week:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/04/1300329/-Jeez-I-hope-those-10-guys-with-AR-15s-in-this-restaurant-don-t-have-keychains-GunFAIL-LXXI

Posted by: phx8 at June 8, 2014 7:33 PM
Comment #379213

Weary, this is how they do it in Canada. What do you think of it?


http://www.policymic.com/articles/90677/a-canadian-network-is-covering-a-mass-shooting-in-a-way-american-outlets-won-t

Posted by: j2t2 at June 8, 2014 10:14 PM
Comment #379214

Congratulations, j2t2, again you have proven my point.

How long did it take you to find that link. Sure, it’s tragic, yes it’s senseless if true. It was also on the front page of the Huffandpuff post making my point for me.

Now, if you really wanted to prove my post wrong you would be serving up stories like these just as easily as you found your Las Vegas story.

But you can’t, can you? News stories of people defending themselves and others, in your own words, aren’t newsworthy. That’s bias, j2t2.


I’m not saying the headlines aren’t factual. I’m saying the number of news stories are biased against guns. There are far fewer, if any, national stories of guns saving lives.

Was it an analysis or an opinion, j2t2? I thought it was an opinion.

Thanks phx8, again making my point of how numerious tragedy and terror make the news. I offer you the same task. Find as many gun saves life stories like these as you can terror and tragedy stories.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 8, 2014 10:14 PM
Comment #379215

That’s a really good start, j2t2. Point this out to Simpleheaded. This is exactly how to avoid glorifying the criminals.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 8, 2014 10:19 PM
Comment #379216

WW,
There are stories of people defending themselves in their homes with guns. That’s fine. It’s rare, but sometimes it works out. Most often, it does not. The examples of people killing themselves, loved ones, and strangers dwarfs the examples of good outcomes; not only that, the good outcomes would as often as not still turn out good even without guns.

Adding guns to the equation escalates the level and lethality of the violence. That is really all there is to it.

Posted by: phx8 at June 8, 2014 10:55 PM
Comment #379217

Is it rare, phx8? How would you know? How do you know when you only hear the bad news? You can look, you have to look hard, to find many instances where people have saved their lives and the lives of others with a gun.

In fact, the number of lives saved by weapons and those who carry them cannot be counted. The simple knowledge of there being the possibility of a gun present will deter a criminal. Criminals are cowards by nature and will not risk themselves in an environment where it is possible a weapon may be used against them.

Don’t kid yourself phx8. To say it’s rare, to say the bad dwarfs the good is denial. To be so convinced the bad outweighs the good is a product of the brainwashing the media is giving us.

Perhaps it’s time we start brainwashing the criminals, phx8. I would venture to say if the media focused on the life saving instances, instead of the criminals, violent crime would be reduced. Let’s insist the media focus on the actions of law abiding citizens stopping crime instead of putting the criminal on the front page over and over again. The media should be used to promote good, not terror and tragedy. The media should be putting the fear of the gun in the hearts of every criminal, not every law abiding citizen.

Surely you can agree with that!


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 8, 2014 11:38 PM
Comment #379218

Meanwhile, some of the details are coming out from the Las Vegas shooting. Guess those cops should have been wearing an ‘I am armed’ sign on their backs, but it would not have helped. One was shot in the back of the head while getting a soda. The shooter then turned on the other cop. Apparently the other cop was able to fire, but was hit multiple times and killed. According to the Las Vegas Journal:

“The shooters then stripped the officers of their weapons and ammunition and badges, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. They then covered the officers with something that featured the Gadsden flag, a yellow banner with a coiled snake above the words, “Don’t tread on Me.”

The flag is named for Christopher Gadsden a Revolutionary War general who designed it. It has recently come back in vogue as an adopted symbol of the American tea party movement.”

The killers went into a nearby WalMart. Someone with a concealed carry permit shot and wounded one of the them (?). That person was killed by the shooters. The two shooters then committed suicide.

Information is still coming out on this particular shooting, so these reports are definitely preliminary. Various other events will probably push it off the pages soon. Still, it gives a great illustration of the problem with guns in our society.

Posted by: phx8 at June 9, 2014 1:09 AM
Comment #379219

ph let’s say that your identification of the gun being the problem is correct. Again, what is your proposed solution? I heard Sen. Boxer on TV this weekend saying we needed “simple, common sense solutions” (she used that phrase about 20 times) yet the last bill I remember being proposed was the renewal of the AWB. She railed on people in Indiana selling handguns to people in Chicago but that’s already against Federal law.

So what’s the simple common sense solution that is also effective? If we suspend the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments I believe that we could dramatically reduce crime in the U.S to include murder by handgun. That’s not simple or common sense but it sure would be effective.

Posted by: George in SC at June 9, 2014 8:19 AM
Comment #379220
Congratulations, j2t2, again you have proven my point.

Only if your point is sometimes good people with guns die when confronted by bad people with guns Weary.

How long did it take you to find that link. Sure, it’s tragic, yes it’s senseless if true. It was also on the front page of the Huffandpuff post making my point for me.

I suppose to be fair the news shouldn’t cover this story until such time that it covers a guns save people story but that just isn’t how it happens Weary. To think news outlets shouldn’t cover stories because they are “anti gun” stories is rather silly IMHO.

Now, if you really wanted to prove my post wrong you would be serving up stories like these just as easily as you found your Las Vegas story.

Weary all of these stories, in your link, came from media outlets that covered the story! What exactly are you complaining about? Are you suggesting these stories should make front page on the Huffpo each and every time “News channel4” decides they are “national media” worthy? Look at the Detroit story, that made the affiliate of a national media, the guy didn’t save anyone, the kids weren’t armed, didn’t return fire. They kids didn’t break into the home when he was there the first time. All of this and it didn’t make the “national media” go figure!

But you can’t, can you? News stories of people defending themselves and others, in your own words, aren’t newsworthy. That’s bias, j2t2.

My own words! didn’t you leave out “national media” worthy Weary? Why is that?


I’m not saying the headlines aren’t factual. I’m saying the number of news stories are biased against guns. There are far fewer, if any, national stories of guns saving lives.

So you want fairness in the “national media” and when the local affiliates run a “pro gun” story it should be on the “national media” as well even though like the Detroit story it just isn’t national news. Just running the story locally isn’t good enough because the “anti gun” stories such as the cops being gunned down in Las Vegas yesterday is on national news.

SO you are suggesting Fox news run a pro Obama story each time it runs an anti Obama story? A pro immigration story each time it runs an anti immigration story? A pro climate change story each time it runs an anti climate change story. Lets see that happen for a bit then we can talk about pro guns stories as being national news.

Was it an analysis or an opinion, j2t2? I thought it was an opinion.

Call it what you want Weary you didn’t rebut the accuracy of it.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 9, 2014 8:47 AM
Comment #379222

George in SC,
I would like to see firearms limited to hunting rifles and weapons for self-defense of the home. Many of the guns out there are designed to kill a lot of people in a very short time, and there is simply no reason for them. That could be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment does not make sense anyway. The 2nd involves militias for defense, and while those might have made sense in the 18th or 19th centuries, they have since become long obsolete.

The experience of the Australians would be worth copying. They have a very similar society to us- a love of freedom and liberty, a similar media, the same (violent) games and movies- but their level of gun violence is a fraction of ours. They succeeded by banning weapons designed to kill a lot of people quickly, and their ban worked. To make it work, they instituted a nationwide program to repurchase the weapons.

The US has over 300 million firearms, but those are in the possession of a relatively small portion of the population, and that portion is declining. It would take some doing, but it is worth the effort.

No other ‘civilized’ country in the world experiences a level of violence like our country, and that level of violence deprives Americans of the most fundamental right of all- Life.

Posted by: phx8 at June 9, 2014 10:13 AM
Comment #379223
It would take some doing, but it is worth the effort.

Really?! A civil war is worth the effort? You really underestimate what you’re proposing.

I also think you underestimate the number of gun owners in the U.S. There are over 1 million licensed hunters in the state of Texas alone. That’s 4% of the population who just use their firearm to hunt.

That’s not including the collectors, sales, sport, self-defense, and, yes, criminals, all who would defend the 2nd amendment against what you propose. Do you think all these people are going to sit back and let the government take their 2nd amendment right away from them?

j2t2 and yourself are quick to point out the Gadsden flag’s morbid display in Las Vegas, yet you come up with incendiary remarks like the one above. You’re simply asking for it, phx8! At least now we know where you stand.

Keep pushing, phx8. Keep insisting we admit we’re wrong, j2t2. Keep refusing to meet and find common ground. Your party is good at that. Just ask those who died in our first Civil war.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 9, 2014 10:48 AM
Comment #379226

Phx8

“No other ‘civilized’ country in the world experiences a level of violence like our country, and that level of violence deprives Americans of the most fundamental right of all- Life.”

The people that the anti 2nd Amendment crowd is targeting does NOT experience that level of violence, so how does blaming them for that violence and calling the “gun nuts,” address the problem?

Posted by: kctim at June 9, 2014 12:59 PM
Comment #379227
Keep insisting we admit we’re wrong, j2t2.

Weary, You don’t have to admit you are wrong to anyone. I’m glad you recognize you are wrong however. My intent, Weary, is not to win a war of words with you, a debate or to win anything else. My intent is to stop movement followers from feeding on the delusion coming from the conservative movement leaders. The two in the Vegas shootings are an example of delusionaries not revolutionaries IMHO, that provide cause for stricter gun control for the rest of us. They cause the police to continue to militarize, and who can blame the cops when they are ambushed and shot in the back by extremist right wingers.


Keep refusing to meet and find common ground.

I thought the example of Australia gun control provided by phx8 was an excellent example of common ground. Yet all it did was set you off on a tirade, threatening another civil war! Perhaps the middle, common ground, is a bit farther to the left than many on the right can tolerate seeings as they have been so polarized by their extremist leaders on the far right on 2nd amendment issues. Common ground doesn’t mean capitulation Weary. The insistence on blaming the media for not sugar coating the issue is not an attempt to reach common ground IMHO. There are many venues for getting pro gun news as you have demonstrated yet that isn’t the goal is it? It is squashing the bad news out there. Where is the common ground in that Weary?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 9, 2014 1:04 PM
Comment #379229

Ph and J2 in 1991 Austrailia’s gun problem was 629 firearm related deaths. That’s about the same size problem as Chicago alone and Chicago had many of the strict legal requirements that Austrailia implemented.

Well it was Chicago, but 2013 resulted in their lowest numbers in years. Was it their gun laws?

The department and other city officials have pointed out that the drop in homicides, shootings and other violent crimes coincides with changes in police strategies, including tactics targeting violent street gangs that are responsible for the vast majority of the city’s gun crimes and, significantly, about $100 million in overtime pay for hundreds of officers deployed nightly to high crime areas.

Posted by: George in SC at June 9, 2014 1:38 PM
Comment #379234

From recent news reports, the bystander with a concealed weapons permit who confronted the couple was shot and killed by the woman. The couple was eventually wounded by police and took their own lives. “A shopper, Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, of Las Vegas had a concealed weapon and decided to confront Jerad Miller, police said. As he walked toward the suspect, Amanda Miller came up behind him and shot him several times in the ribs, police said.” http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-cops-three-others-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766

Posted by: Rich at June 9, 2014 3:10 PM
Comment #379240

In the Las Vegas shooting, all of the people who were killed were armed. It was essentially a murder/suicide, with the homicides aimed at people carrying weapons- police, and a Mr. Wilcox. If Mr. Wilcox had not been armed, perhaps he would have done what the other customers did in WalMart- hide, or flee, and call 911; instead, he confronted a shooter. It turned out he might as well have been wearing a sign on his back, “I am armed,” because there were two shooters in this case, and when he confronted the first, the second one shot him in the back and killed him.

Posted by: phx8 at June 9, 2014 4:42 PM
Comment #379246

George in SC. We need to do something here in this country, as we just seem to be escalating the violence. I don’t think sugar coating the issue with gun positive headlines is the answer.

The Chicago police may have made good efforts to curb gang violence and limit the number of murders but at what price to our liberties? IMHO the police have become part of the problem as they have militarized over the years shooting many civilians themselves.

Of course we have other issues such as the easy availability of weapons for the mentally ill, and the extreme fringe right wingers who fell they need to defend themselves from the government as they prepare for revolution. The resulting arms war has only served to cause more problems.


I think the relevant issue regarding Australian gun laws is the number of mass shootings that has occurred in Australia since the buy back of these weapons.

“Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-australia-idUSBRE9320C720130403

Posted by: j2t2 at June 9, 2014 9:31 PM
Comment #379249

Chicago was a city that had gun registration laws for over 40 years and still had one of the highest murder by gun rates in the country. And at what price to liberty? The District Court said that their gun registration laws were unconstitutional! Chicago’s gun problem was on scale with Australia’s (400 to 500 per year) and yet they already had in place many of the 1996 reforms including gun licensing, and bans on assault weapons.

Now the registration law have ended and shall issue concealed carry permits are being issued. It will be interesting to see if the trend in gun violence continues downward or if the Wild Wild West breaks out again.

Posted by: George in SC at June 10, 2014 8:50 AM
Comment #379266

Mother of Joe Wilcox, Las Vegas Concealed Carrier – “I’m Glad He Helped”

Despite the fact that Wilcox was killed, police called him a hero for his actions, and it’s highly likely that his actions resulted in police being able to more quickly engage the pair, resulting in their suicide.
Posted by: Weary Willie at June 10, 2014 7:42 PM
Comment #379268

Little consolation isn’t it Weary? Being called a hero by the police whilst lying in a casket. BTW what exactly does ” it’s highly likely that his actions resulted in police being able to more quickly engage the pair,” mean in the real world? The few seconds it took for the killers to shoot him were the few seconds the police needed to do what? They didn’t kill anyone else after that did they?

Putting lipstick on this pig just doesn’t work for me Weary. Lets face it, this was an attack by American citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. They have proved how carrying a concealed weapon doesn’t always work out in these cases despite the rhetoric of the NRA and conservative movement leaders who consistently yell us the answer is a good guy with a gun. Nor does being well trained police when you are blind sided. I just don’t think there is enough lipstick to make this pig pretty Weary. I also have a tough time believing a headline makes much of a difference to the slain officers and the CCW guy.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 10, 2014 9:20 PM
Comment #379270

They sure make a difference to you don’t they, j2t2. You’re not happy if positive headlines are portrayed in the media. Your latest comment proves it. Your posts reflect a real sick point of view in my opinion. It proves nothing except a blatant bias and morbid focus on terror and tragedy to get what your side wants.

Self Defense Roundup for June 6, 2014 – 8 Documented Defensive Gun Uses

Here you go, j2t2. Here’s enough information to keep you busy picking it apart. Here’s 8 stories you can find a negative side in. Anyone with a sick, perverted agenda can find the bad in anything.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 10, 2014 9:38 PM
Comment #379271

George in SC, the fact remains Australia has had 0 mass killing in the 17 years following the stricter gun laws. We on the other hand have embarrassed ourselves as Americans by abusing our 2nd amendment rights on a regular basis and allowing many mass murders amongst the many other gun related deaths in the same time frame.

The supporters of the right to bear arms have vigorously protected their rights at the expense of many thousands killed by these arms. What are you guys going to do about it? How do we fix the problem without giving up other rights? What do you tell the kids whose fathers died by these Las Vegas gunmen exercising their 2nd amendment rights?

Explain to me how the founding fathers would insist upon the right to bear arms for other than military purposes when we as Americans use these arms to violate the basic human rights of so many other American? And last but not least address the responsibility that comes with the right to bear arms. How can any thinking American insist upon the right to bear arms when his fellow Americans intentionally and accidentally kill so many fellow (and themselves in some cases) Americans each year.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 10, 2014 9:41 PM
Comment #379274
Your posts reflect a real sick point of view in my opinion. It proves nothing except a blatant bias and morbid focus on terror and tragedy to get what your side wants.

Weary, how sad for you when you cannot recognize the problem is much more serious that painting pretty pictures in the news. I don’t focus on terror and tragedy, terror and tragedy focus on America. Hiding it won’t solve the problem. Neither will telling us a good guy with a gun is the answer, as we have seen in the Vegas shooting.

BTW MY side is the reasonable use of firearms for self defense, recreation and hunting. I own a shotgun currently and have owned several different handguns in the past. However I don’t bury my head in the sand just because news outlets report the news.

The answer, of course, to the problem of guns being use to murder so many Americans each year is responsibility. However it seems responsibility has taken a backseat to rights. We have to many Americans using guns to kill others, so many in fact the use of weapons for self defense has been pushed off the screen. As is the case with recreational use of firearms.

The right wing in this country holds much of the blame when they exploit the 2nd amendment because the need their weapons to “confront the government”. They use the 2nd amendment for political gain at the cost of many American lives. As I said delusionaries not revolutionaries.

It is time for conservatives to step up to the plate with real answers to the problem of violence in this country Weary. Quit hiding behind the 2nd amendment and accept responsibility for the right to bear arms.

http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-man-charged-slaying-gains-support-203806359.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown_n_5480209.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/obama-gun-control_n_5481799.html

Posted by: j2t2 at June 10, 2014 10:09 PM
Comment #379276

Weary, I’m disappointed. It seems all you wanted to do was blame the media for the national problem with gun violence. It’s sad you can’t respond intelligently to any of the comments contradicting your claims.

It seems you are bringing a teaspoon to a shovel fight with these links to defensive uses, good luck with that. In the meantime the violence keeps adding up and the rights you seek to protect will wither without intelligent answers to solve the problem. Using and/or threatening violence against those that disagree with the ability of Americans to use their 2nd amendment rights wisely doesn’t work, ask the Vegas shooters.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/10/how-fox-news-covers-right-wing-cop-killers/199651

Posted by: j2t2 at June 10, 2014 11:56 PM
Comment #379282

Just another night in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/ohio-man-shoots-toddler_n_5482897.html

or as Weary would prefer, “Toddler dies protecting Mom from domestic abuse”

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2014 7:12 AM
Comment #379283

Don’t be absurd, j2t2.

You’re exibiting a typical liberal tactic of using the opposite extreme to attack a moderate proposal when it threatens the liberal agenda.

Not once in this post did I suggest a swing from the obvious media bias toward gun violence to an obvious bias toward gun safety as you suggest.

What is obvious is your inability to have an intelligent discussion about a moderate proposal.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2014 8:07 AM
Comment #379284


What are you guys going to do about it?

J2 you could have saved yourself three paragraphs of BS by reading this thread.

Lets face it, this was an attack by American citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights to bear arms.

More BS. Jared Miller was a convicted felon and had no right to excercise his 2nd amendment right. Amanda Miller broke federal law when she allowed Jared Miller access to her firearms. They both broke Nevada State law when they shot and killed the two police officers. News flash…. the were criminals. I’m sure they would have ignored any law you might have thought up as well.

You offer a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace “shall not be infringed” with “if we say it’s o.k.” That’s what Australia’s law does and they don’t recognize self defense as a valid reason to own a gun. There is plenty of evidence in Chicago to show that handgun bans, assault weapon bans, and bans on gun stores don’t work, and District court has said some of those are unconstitutional anyway. Your’e back to repeal and replace and good luck with that.

The Chicago police may have made good efforts to curb gang violence and limit the number of murders but at what price to our liberties?

This coming from someone who wants to repeal one of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: George in SC at June 11, 2014 8:17 AM
Comment #379285

Self Defense Roundup for May 18, 2014 – 3 Documented Defensive Gun Uses

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2014 8:18 AM
Comment #379286
Police Chief Calvin Williams says the man is a convicted felon and should not have had a weapon.

Hmmm. Maybe we should have our efficient and effective government pass a law insisting all felons must obey existing law!

No, j2t2 believes all law abiding citizens should obey his law and lay themselves open to felons with guns they shouldn’t have.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2014 8:54 AM
Comment #379289

Congressman on Oregon Shooting: ‘I Always Hope Tragedy Will Inspire Action’ on Gun Control

Here’s phx8’s and j2t2’s hero from Oregon. This is an obvious display of their true attitude. They hope tragedy will get them what they want.

“Never let a crisis go to waste”, right?

That’s why they can’t have positive uses of guns in the media. It goes against their hopes and dreams of a defenseless population they can control.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2014 10:22 AM
Comment #379319
J2 you could have saved yourself three paragraphs of BS by reading this thread.

George in NC, BS really? You guys refuse to accept any responsibility for ensuring the rights we have aren’t violating the rights of others? Let me ask this, does the 2nd amendment prohibit people with a past criminal record from bearing arms?

I was hoping you guys had something that stood a chance but a local non court system sounds like silliness to me. Its like the loop holes in the sales laws. All you need is the right doctor, some money and you have a gun. It also does nothing to prevent stolen weapons from coming on the black market.

More BS. Jared Miller was a convicted felon and had no right to excercise his 2nd amendment right. Amanda Miller broke federal law when she allowed Jared Miller access to her firearms. They both broke Nevada State law when they shot and killed the two police officers. News flash…. the were criminals. I’m sure they would have ignored any law you might have thought up as well.

Not BS, if you ask them. Why should “we the people” have the right to force people who have served their sentence to walk around unprotected if the 2nd amendment gives then the right to bear arms. Hell felons have served in the armed forces.

I do agree however that self styled revolutionaries should not be allowed to carry weapons, unfortunately many conservatives tell us the 2nd amendment is there so we the people have the means to defend ourselves from the government, or in our cases ourselves, we the people.

Yes it is silly, but so is the inability of people such as yourself George to not have any solution to the problem the 2nd amendment has left us with. Other than another local whatever to try to weed out the mentally ill.

That’s what Australia’s law does and they don’t recognize self defense as a valid reason to own a gun.

Yet no more mass killings since the law went into effect in 1996. If it wasn’t the law that proved effective what was it? Did the country have some meeting of the minds whereby everybody agreed to stop the mass killings. Seems not recognizing self defense as a valid reason is a bit tough.

there is plenty of evidence in Chicago to show that handgun bans, assault weapon bans, and bans on gun stores don’t work, and District court has said some of those are unconstitutional anyway.

I agree the law on the books don’t seem to prevent the murders, no deterrent to those that decide they want to break the law until they violate the civil rights of others.SO we are back to what is the answer, why should the 2nd amendment rights take precedence over all other rights including, the stated reasons for our founding fathers declaring independence from England, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Your’e back to repeal and replace and good luck with that.

Which is why I was hoping for those that so staunchly defend the 2nd amendment rights to accept responsibility and come up with an answer for the way to many murders, suicides and attacks on the police. Instead you call BS and run for cover with the “its our rights” selfishness we see all the time. I say that is BS.

This coming from someone who wants to repeal one of the Bill of Rights.

Once again George your less than intelligent response saddens me. I expected better from you. For the record I want to strengthen the 2nd amendment rights to all Americans responsible enough to bear arms. But I want to do it without taking away the rights of others in the process, which is where we are at today in this country. Your rights infringe upon the rights of others.

After all we can’t yell fire in a crowded theater why should anybody with the money and desire be able to buy rocket equipped drones or machine guns.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2014 8:06 PM
Comment #379321

I think j2t2 is losing it, George in SC. He thinks we support stolen guns, fake doctor’s excuses, (good for leftist teachers, not for thee), non court systems, he’s advocating criminals get guns because they’ve already done their time! He’s grasping!

I have an idea, j2t2. How about we put the federal government back in it’s place? How about we de-militarize the local police and all of these federal agencies that have no business in law enforcement? How about we repeal about 80% of the feel-good laws and programs that are stealing and extorting money from people? How about we recognize that law abiding citizens are not to blame? That’s a start, yes?

Or would that get in the way of your plan to dominate and subjugate the population?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2014 8:25 PM
Comment #379322

Two Men Threaten Young Lady over the Phone, Show Up With Guns, Armed Dad Steps In

“I think the two suspects are very lucky they weren’t hurt, because I think most people would agree if somebody comes kicking your door in and is armed and you’re armed — I’m really surprised he didn’t hurt them,” Montoya said. “Luckily no one was hurt, in both cases.”

Guns save lives! Sorry j2t2 and phx8, no blood and gore in this one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2014 8:30 PM
Comment #379346
I think j2t2 is losing it, George in SC. He thinks we support stolen guns, fake doctor’s excuses, (good for leftist teachers, not for thee), non court systems,

I didn’t say that Weary(but thanks for the lack of intelligent response to what I did say), but if you support the local non court system George in SC refers to earlier in this thread then IMHO you do support fake doctors excuses. The fact is Weary, whether you support them or not stolen guns are out there. The point is it doesn’t solve the problem.


he’s advocating criminals get guns because they’ve already done their time! He’s grasping!

No Weary, as usual George felt the need to make the false claim that I wanted to “repeal the bill of rights” (talk about exaggeration) not just the 2nd amendment but the whole thing! SO I was trying to see how you guys justified not allowing certain Americans their 2nd amendment rights yet felt the need to address the issue with ignorant comments like that one.

I have an idea, j2t2. How about we put the federal government back in it’s place?

Weary, now instead of the media it is the government that is to blame!


How about we de-militarize the local police and all of these federal agencies that have no business in law enforcement?

Sure Weary have the police going to a gun fight with a knife! Take away their 2nd amendment rights as well! Meanwhile the “patriots” can arm themselves to the teeth! Seriously?


How about we repeal about 80% of the feel-good laws and programs that are stealing and extorting money from people?

To what ends Weary? Then conservatives all become happy campers and we can join the third world nations as the best of the bunch?

How about we recognize that law abiding citizens are not to blame?

Weary, many times the violence is in fact committed by people without any criminal records, or law abiding citizens. Other times these same law abiding citizens have accidents that result in the death of someone else. If you want to suppress the rights of others to defend themselves against these law abiding citizens how are you any better than those you accuse of wanting to take away your rights? Most just want a stop to the senseless violence.

I was hoping 2nd amendment types had some ideas that would help but it seems you guys are to busy name calling and blaming the government and or the media while selfishly whining about your rights.


That’s a start, yes?

No Weary, it is for the most part delusion created by conservative leaders to keep people like yourself conf… well deluded.

Or would that get in the way of your plan to dominate and subjugate the population?

Weary, it’s just this type of delusional thinking from 2nd amendment supporters that cause problems for all of us. People in this country are tired of the violence. We need to do better than blame the media or the government or make foolish claims that some of us want to subjugate the population so our voice doesn’t count.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2014 8:09 PM
Comment #379350

Maybe we should join you in denial. We can blame law abiding citizens, because it’s just easier, right?

Do you realize you’ve railed against every proposal made in this thread, j2t2? You are in favor of the status quo, since you refuse to consider any suggestion other than your own.

Congradulations, obstructionist.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 13, 2014 12:28 AM
Comment #379356

Instead of denial Weary, why not try an intelligent response? Responding to the queries and comments with intelligent comments of your own is a means to achieve a common ground. Refusing to answer anything and making false claims about what was said really doesn’t lend itself to a common ground. At the least think about what was actually said.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2014 7:15 AM
Comment #379359

Saying something you disagree with is not refusing to answer. Why are only responses you agree with the intellegent ones.

You criticize, you don’t discuss. You have used silly excuses to criticize and obstruct. Again, congratulations.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 13, 2014 10:17 AM
Comment #379364

Royal Flush-
You know, it’s telling that you don’t even bother to dispute the basic point: a gun is a deadly weapon, and that is what people react to. If you’re walking into a restaurant, and you see people armed dining in the middle of it, you’re going to ask yourself, “Is this place being robbed? Are the people here hostages?”

It doesn’t occur to you that restaurants, like other businesses, have traditionally been considered neutral ground. Not only have people been asked to leave guns outside, but it’s even customary to take a fistfight outside.

It’s a basic violation of hospitality to engender a risky environment inside your establishment. That’s an ancient code, older than Christ.

As for your crack about abortion… well, all partisan grotesquerie aside, that’s probably why abortions don’t tend to get performed in restaurants, either.

As for what they lose when those bozos walk into a restaurant? Try the benefit of the doubt. That benefit of the doubt is what keeps the gun laws lax, the interpretations favorable. This system is designed to react, in some part, to public sentiment, public consensus. You folks aren’t managing that sentiment, that consensus, all too well.

Weary Willie-
Why do people think guns are a threat to them?

Dumb question. Those are purpose made instruments of lethal force. They see them killing people everyday on television, so it’s not as if they’re unaware of what they do. You claim media bias, but the real operative bias here is your media, because it kind of cuts out all the other points of view from the left, the center, and most importantly, the apolitical.

You’re confusing unbiased with something that bears your bias, your level of advocacy.

What this boils down to, though, on a simple, non-political, elemental level, is that people go where they are safe, and avoid where they are not. A gun unavoidably alters the equation. People would be naive not to consider, even if just briefly, what the intent of that person with the rifle is. Are they robbing the place? Are they going to shoot up everybody in there?

Unavoidably, that means some people aren’t even going to step through that door. They’ll move on to the next place.

Lost business.

It’s the same reason why they might ask somebody who is yelling at somebody else at the top of their voice to leave. If you have two people arguing in a place, if you’re walking in, you might decide that you’re not going to get peace and quiet or an unoccupied staff from that place. So you’ll leave.

Lost business. Does it matter that they were exercising free speech? No.

These business owners don’t want people thinking twice about whether their establishment is a hospitable, relaxed, risk-free place.

You? You’re trying to force everybody else to support your points, report the stories you want to report. You? You want business owners to essentially put your right to flaunt your weapon above their right and their patron’s rights to enjoy their meals, or enjoy their shopping without the spectre of potential violence held over their head.

I think the most virulent poison about gun ownership out there has been what it’s advocates say.

Why are Gun rights people often portrayed negatively?

Because the negative stereotypes are the ones they promote. You have these big-talking people who insist that even if they have adequate arms already, they should be able to get huge arsenals of weapons without any strings attached, even as the gun crimes, the murders with guns number in the tens of thousands.

You have these people who respond to even common sense restrictions on ownership, background checks by basically saying that the government will take that, turn around, and confiscate all weapons, and slide into a police state.

You have these people who seem eager to bring the fact that they would take up arms agaisnt tyranny any time their favorite politicians lose. Second Amendment Remedies, like Sharron Angle said.

You folks seem to go out of your way to speak, behave, and react in alarming ways to any calls to moderate your positions or behavior. And of course, being the good advocates that you are, you make sure plenty of video cameras are rolling and DSLRs are snapping when you hold that rifle above your head, and say “You can have my gun when you take it out of my cold, dead hands!”

It never occurs to you that the press only has to pass your own publicity on unfiltered, and it alarms people?

You folks have lost touch with what the public thinks of you, which is no surprise, since you’ve so obsessed about the Liberal Media, that you’ve failed to really take in their reasoning or the rest of public sentiment. Your contempt for it, though, doesn’t make it disappear. The simple fact is, the average person finds the gun nuts to be weird, and the ones who walk into restaurants with rifles both weird and threatening.

It’s time to start crafting your message in a more reassuring light, to stop being the people who cry out “cold dead hands”, and start once again being the people who teach a responsibility as well as a right. It’s time to stop making your members paranoid, and by making them paranoid, make them look nuts to other people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2014 5:39 PM
Comment #379375
Why do people think guns are a threat to them?
They see them killing people everyday on television

Yea, I know, that’s the point of this post! Day after day, hour after hour, week after week, you hear about the senseless tragedy and mayhem. People who are unfamiliar with guns, you can call them victims, only see the violence because that’s all the media shows them. It’s not my media, or your media that does this. It’s the MSM. The main stream media. And it completely neglects the other side of the issue, the side that shows people who are familiar with guns, who are knowledgeable of how they operate, and how they can be used for self-protection and the protection of others. This is bias whether you want to admit it or not. You shifting the focus of that bias isn’t going to negate the fact that that bias is an anti 2nd amendment bias. It’s not the MSM’s job to promote a political point of view.

What this boils down to, though, on a simple, non-political, elemental level, is that people go where they are safe, and avoid where they are not.

Precisely, but why would you want to deprive someone who feels safe carrying a weapon of that safety? Why would you advertise the fact your patrons and employees are vulnerable? That’s exactly what anti-gun advocates are doing and attempting to do.

You mention people with rifles in stores. I will clarify your comment by saying it was some people with rifles in a store. This was an isolated incident the MSM latched onto to, and focused on, to promote the anti-gun position. I have never seen anyone shopping with a rifle slung over their shoulder. They did this to prove a point. They would rather open carry handguns which is illegal in Texas, whereas the open carry of a rifle and shotgun is not. They don’t think they need rifles to fend off attacking armies in their neighborhoods. They were making a point. A point the MSM twisted to their own ends and presented it as a potential terror and tragedy situation.

You’re trying to force everybody else to support your points, report the stories you want to report.

Unlike your side, Stephen Daugherty, force is not my forte. I am simply pointing out the fact the MSM is bias and reports only stories that put gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters in a bad light. They do it by showing only the negative side of gun use, never the positive side.

You want business owners to essentially put your right to flaunt your weapon above their right and their patron’s rights to enjoy their meals, or enjoy their shopping without the specter of potential violence held over their head.

Let’s not be melodramatic for the purpose of putting gun owners in a negative position, ok? The only people who are holding the specter of potential violence over the public’s head is the MSM and their torrent of terror and tragedy. No one who carries a handgun for personal protection is doing it to flaunt it. So don’t be asinine with the sensationalism.

Why are Gun rights people often portrayed negatively?

Again, the MSM is discriminating against the law abiding gun owner and supporters of the 2nd amendment.

You have these big-talking people who insist that even if they have adequate arms already, they should be able to get huge arsenals of weapons without any strings attached, even as the gun crimes, the murders with guns number in the tens of thousands.
Who are you to tell people when they have enough weapons? And you again seem to forget the fact that these people are law abiding citizens practicing their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It’s none of your business how many guns they own as long as they are law abiding citizens. You cannot simply assume they will break the law because they have more weapons than you would like them to have. Just remember, criminals are breaking the laws and committing the murders, not law abiding citizens. You cannot throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater either.

Fifty years ago people wouldn’t have dreamed the government would use the eminent domain law to confiscate private property and give it to a corporation to increase tax revenue. Yet it now happens on a regular basis. Twenty years ago people would never believe the police would go through an entire town, house to house, forcing every occupant, at gunpoint, into the street with hands clasped behind their heads. Yet we’ve seen it happen and people are justifying it. Ten years ago people would not be able to comprehend why every federal agency in existence needs it’s own police force with military capabilities and them all purchasing vast amounts of ammunition. Given these encroachments on personal liberty and infringement of rights what does it say about what can happen ten years from now, or twenty, or fifty? It says there is a lot to be concerned about. Gun registries can lead to confiscation and history proves that.

It never occurs to you that the press only has to pass your own publicity on unfiltered, and it alarms people?

It’s not unfiltered. That’s the whole point of this post! The alarm is coming from a bias against guns in total.

…that you’ve failed to really take in their reasoning or the rest of public sentiment.

And that is just libspeak for “you really need to see it our way!”.

It is not law abiding gun owners who make society paranoid. It is over zealous politicians, a bias MSM, and the relentless stream of terror and tragedy they constantly exude in a purposeful effort to poison society against the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 13, 2014 8:44 PM
Comment #379443
Saying something you disagree with is not refusing to answer. Why are only responses you agree with the intellegent ones.

The problem Weary, is the answer has little relevance to the query or comment usually. You seem to be unable to answer, instead you resort diversion an other half handed attempts to obfuscate.

You criticize, you don’t discuss. You have used silly excuses to criticize and obstruct. Again, congratulations.

I have made no excuses Weary, But I have criticized your comments when they blame the government , the media, liberals or whoever you have tried to blame. I have criticized your comments that intentionally obfuscate the issue. Did you really expect anyone to buy the latest diversion from conservative movement leaders?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 14, 2014 8:35 AM
Comment #379446

j2t2, you criticize to a point to where you condone allowing convicted fellons access to firearms. Your argument contradicts itself. There is no logic to your position and doesn’t/can’t merit a response.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2014 10:35 AM
Comment #379459

j2t2, you criticize to a point to where you condone allowing convicted fellons access to firearms.

Weary, you misunderstand. Go back and re read what was actually written in the context it was written. You asked about common ground, I was wondering if there was any room in the hardline you guys have taken on the 2nd amendment to find a common ground that would help solve the problem we have in this country.

Your argument contradicts itself. There is no logic to your position and doesn’t/can’t merit a response.

SO it has come to this Weary. You have been unable to pigeon hole me into the standard answers given to you by movement leaders. You are now left with this lame response yet unable to grasp the point I am making! Probably the hatred you have for us guys to the left of you.

Anyway the logic is simple Weary, so in a nutshell let me explain it to you. I don’t want to see our 2nd amendment rights taken away. I also don’t like to see the continuing gun violence and death in this country when most other countries are able to have so much less violence than us.

I am saying those that are in favor of curtailing 2nd amendment have tried different laws and are trying hard to bring down the level of gun violence in this country. You guys aren’t offering anything that would help solve the problem. I am calling you out on that Weary. I am asking pro 2nd amendment types to come up with something that works to cut down the gun violence in this country. It is that simple!

IMHO insisting the media assures equal outcomes for gun use just doesn’t cut it as an answer to the problem. It isn’t a PR issue Weary where violence will stop once people see guns used in self defense.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 14, 2014 5:46 PM
Comment #379464

States that have passed conceal carry laws have seen a reduction in crime since their passage. Illinois, Texas, Florida have seen up to a 30% decrease in crime since the passage of their conceal carry laws. 40 other states allow “shall issue” permits to their citizens and permit holders have reached 8 million and are climbing.

More emphasis needs to be placed on gun education classes. Tactical training courses should be available in greater numbers to anyone interested in aquiring that education. Many gun accidents can be avoided by people knowing what to do when they see a gun and how to handle a gun. Children should be educated in what a gun does, how it works, what to do when they see a gun, and most important, eliminate the curiosity of the gun to avoid their wanting to handle it.

You can’t do any of that by stigmatizing the gun. Children will have a curiosity of firearms if they are kept ignorant of them. It’s human nature. Educating them as to what they can do and how they do it will instill a respect that tv gunfights and cops and robbers games won’t. Many children are killed by siblings playing with a loaded weapon simply because they believe it is as harmless as a toy.

The promotion of self-defense with firearms courses must be included in the media and the bias toward the anti-gun mentality must be removed. Businesses that specialize in self-defense training, tactical training courses, gun safety classes, ect. should be encouraged to advertize on tv not discouraged by anti-gun rhetoric and fear mongering.

There’s one thing you seem to forget about the rest of the world and their gun laws, j2t2. They are not the U.S.A. You also seem to ignore Switzerland and their attitude toward guns. Gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland and yet gun crimes are so scarce they don’t even keep statistics. It’s not the absence of guns that will lower crime rates. In fact, murder by gun in Cambodia was almost 400 people in 2003 and it is illegal to own any gun there!

Your supposition that self defense and gun ownership isn’t a PR issue is false. Take any crime, from littering to drug use, PR is used to curtail it. The same can be done with this issue and do it with great success.

I contend that the negative bias exacerbates gun crime by making it appear more common than it really is. Not including the positive sides of gun ownership and by not having an honest discussion about the 2nd amendment does more to contribute to more crime and and more gun violence. By keeping our children ignorant of firearms and what they can do contributes to the accidental deaths and injuries. Training in the tactical use of firearms can reduce the number of accidental deaths and injuries caused by novice gun owners in crime and self-defense senerios.

I didn’t just pull these suggestions out of my butt, j2t2. These suggestions have been made by “pro amendment types” all along. I think your problem is you do not want to listen. Please refer to GSL’s mission statement I have copied in my original post above.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2014 9:26 PM
Comment #379514

Weary Willie-
I think you need to realize that there’s nothing particularly biased about fearing a person who walks into a restaurant with a gun. You can fantasize about how people should perceive you, but it doesn’t change a damn thing about how they will perceive you. You blame it on bias, but that’s a copout. Truth is, a gun is an inherently threatening instrument. It’s a weapon. Taking it out is generally acknowledge to be a threatening act, if it’s not the process of giving it up or disarming it.

I don’t even have to make a political argument to tell you why people would be wary. I can simply say that civilization has tended to frown on weaponry, or it’s flaunting, in places where people are expected to be treated as guests.

You generally don’t want to let a customer intimidate your other customers. How many storied do you hear about a hero being asked by an owner to clear out some belligerent jerk who waves a weapon around, or makes threats to other customers?

You’re so busy trying to defeat the biases that you feel get in the way of your unfiltered message, that you haven’t even considered whether your message actually appeals to people in its basic form. You cop out of that, instead indulge this paranoid thinking that tells you that if only you could force your opinion on people without the media filter, they’d embrace you and your thoughts.

If you’re wrong, what happens then? Well, pretty much the same thing as if people turned against you because of media bias. So, if your explanation for every negative reaction is “media bias,” your are going to quickly end up undermining your ability to tell when either your message, or the thought behind the message has hit the limits of its appeal.

It’s a good thing, often enough, to know what people really think, to understand why they object, to be able to tell when you’ll just have to agree to disagree. But you folks, because of your bias theory, have no real notion of when you’ve taken things too far, and that’s what’s going to undermine your cause, ultimately.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2014 11:50 AM
Comment #379523

I agree, there is nothing bias about fearing a person who walks into a store with a gun. Fear is instinctive.

What generates that fear is the bias in the media that portrays a person with a gun as being someone who is going to kill them. That is farther from the truth than you are willing to admit. Most people who have weapons don’t flaunt them. In fact, most people don’t even know when another person has a gun. They don’t know because those people don’t flaunt them. They generate no fear when they walk into a store because no one knows they have the gun.

You’re building a straw man by saying everyone who owns a gun walks around waving it in everybody’s face. You are perpetuating the bias by saying everyone with a gun is a threat to everyone around them. You point to a specific instance as the Texas case where the gun owner is making a point. You should know what their argument is. But do you know their side of the story? From the content of the news story you don’t. They would not have the rifle if the law allowed them to carry a handgun. They were making a point and the media vilified them instead of trying to have an honest discussion of the facts. That’s called bias. It’s that bias that generates that fear you constantly refer to.

Many more people get killed by automobiles than with handguns. People use cars to murder others. Do you see every other news story, every day, every hour, hour after hour, of the horrors of automobile deaths? Do you see politicians lining up to pass laws against people owning automobiles? No, you don’t. Because there is not a bias in the media toward the evils and the terror and tragedy caused by automobiles. Far worse than handguns yet no campaign against them.

I’m not saying the media should cover up all the instances of gun violence. In fact, they should cover it as they have been. I’m saying they should include the opposite side of the story, the good that guns do, with the bad. There should be a ratio of good and bad. Then you would see a ratio that favors a positive side of gun ownership that far outweighs the negative side that is portrayed exclusively now.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 15, 2014 5:24 PM
Comment #379564
I’m saying they should include the opposite side of the story, the good that guns do, with the bad. There should be a ratio of good and bad. Then you would see a ratio that favors a positive side of gun ownership that far outweighs the negative side that is portrayed exclusively now.


“SO you are suggesting Fox news run a pro Obama story each time it runs an anti Obama story? A pro immigration story each time it runs an anti immigration story? A pro climate change story each time it runs an anti climate change story.”

Equal outcomes for the corporate media Weary?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 17, 2014 7:20 AM
Comment #379571

Aren’t the majority of MSNBC stories pro Obama stories? Aren’t most stories pro immigration stories? Don’t tell me the majority of stories about climate change are anti-climate change stories, j2t2. That is simply ludicrous! People’s careers are being destroyed because they have second thoughts about MMGW.

I’m suggesting the MSM do it’s job and not be a bias mouthpiece for big government. Because I focused this post on the MSM bias against the 2nd amendment and gun rights doesn’t mean the MSM is not bias on other subjects.

Do you agree with what you hear on MSNBC, j2t2? Why don’t you write a post on how the MSM is not bias, how it’s “fair and balanced”? (pun intended :) )

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 17, 2014 10:48 AM
Comment #379572

.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 17, 2014 10:50 AM
Comment #381242

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 4:54 AM
Post a comment