Third Party & Independents Archives

​Are We Waiting for a Leviathan?

David French, of the National Review, is right. The Las Vegas shooting is strange in its details. At least those details that we have so far found out about from the police. Stephen Paddock had spent the whole weekend (perhaps since Thursday) at the Mandalay and had booked a hotel room with a perfect overview of the fairground where the country music festival was held. He had tripods, a platoon’s worth of weapons, and bump stocks that turn a semi automatic weapon into an automatic weapon by providing automatic “bumps” that act like a trigger pull. His girlfriend seems to have been in the Philippines during the weekend and Paddock may have wired her $100,000 days before the shooting. There seems to have been a lot of planning that went into this.

And ISIS is doubling down on its claims that Paddock was one of theirs.

This last claim is, of course, a toxic bit of poison injected into the media bloodstream at a time of suffering and should be treated with scornful caution until compelling evidence becomes available. Nothing in Paddocks's life suggests he turned towards militant islamic violence. But we can't rule it out at this point.

The closer analogy seems to be one of the earliest mass shootings in modern American history, the U of T shootings at Austin in 1966. And yes, Paddock's father was a violent criminal who had run-in's with the law and served time for robbery. Stephen Paddock would have been 13 when Charles Whitman unleashed his rampage from the University's Main Building Tower, a few years after his own father had been arrested.

But the great difference between these two shootings is the public reaction. The 2nd amendment debate is so entrenched (left-wing gun control advocates who want confiscation versus gun rights advocates who view any compromise on the issue as capitulation) that as horrific as this shooting has been, positions will only harden and any bipartisan solution is hightly unlikely. The dead will be mourned for, deeply and passionately, but the debate just goes on.

At the Federalist, John Davidson - a hard-hitting no-nonsense journalist - comes to a disturbing conclusion over the Las Vegas tragedy. It's one he has pointed to more than a few times over the last few years. And that is that the divisions in the cultural war (cultural revolution is perhaps a good alternative description of the political climate today in America) are beyond any healing or unity. And what he's saying is this: you come for our guns and there will be war.

But if Davidson is right, then this potential violent conflict over any possible future confiscation of legally owned weapons didn't need a Las Vegas style shooting to come to the point where it is ready to explode. It's been about the left imposing, or trying to impose, dramatically different visions of how American society should exist on that part of America that disagrees strongly with that progressive view. And that's been happening for decades.

In other words, everything is politicized in this cultural revolution, including tragedy. And that is an explosive situation. We need to de-escalate. But how? With trust in institutions, in those who hold opposing views, in elites, in establishments, at all time lows, we start to feel we only have ourselves to depend on. A dark regression to a Hobbesian worldview. That's false of course. America is a highly interconnected, complex, post-modern society. There are arts. There are letters. There are societies. And if there is fear, there is far more safety than is given credit for. And if there is danger of violent death, there is far far more promise of the fulfillment of good life. We all depend on everyone else in some way or other. But it doesn't feel that way for too many people.

What will unify? What Leviathan will rise up? In peace or in evil? Or will America return to its far more constructive solutions that long ago moved far beyond Thomas Hobbes' deep pessimism?

Posted by AllardK at October 4, 2017 3:46 PM
Comments
Comment #420389

I’m sorry that the left is imposing on you, non-existent AllardK. A small minority of Americans own guns, and a miniscule minority own the number of guns that could cause the havoc in Las Vegas. I don’t need to get philosophical about evil. People are able to buy too much ammunition, and buy it away from the places that they would actually use it for legitimate purposes. They should sell as much ammunition as they want at gun ranges, but not allow you to take all of it home with you. The rest of what needs to be done is obvious to all. Manufacturers bribe as many legislators as possible to make as much money as possible. We see the results frequently enough.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 4, 2017 5:03 PM
Comment #420390

“With trust in institutions, in those who hold opposing views, in elites, in establishments, at all time lows, we start to feel we only have ourselves to depend on.”

I don’t believe that is true Allard, and that is at the root of our problems.

Over the past fifty years Americans have become more dependent upon government, especially the national and state government. We seek redress of social problems by politicians. Are they truly smarter, more moral, more feeling, more attuned than we ourselves are?

We now have groups of like-minded people claiming special rights for themselves. We have established poverty rules, education rules, merchant rules, birth-right rules, and rules for public behavior or misbehavior for disparate groups.

Politics now rules common sense. Even history changes according to the whims of the loudest voices.

Every perceived insult, opposing opinion, or unpleasant circumstance now becomes an issue of “rights” and demands are made for political solutions.

Many have lost their self-reliance and depend upon government for how they should think, act, and live; and government is willing to oblige.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2017 5:06 PM
Comment #420391

“It’s been about the left imposing, or trying to impose, dramatically different visions of how American society should exist on that part of America that disagrees strongly with that progressive view.”

That and the hate that comes with it, are the sole reason for the divisive stalemate that we have today.

Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2017 5:23 PM
Comment #420392
That and the hate that comes with it, are the sole reason for the divisive stalemate that we have today. Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2017 5:23 PM

Thank you for your support. Your membership card is in the mail. This was obviously a very hate-filled individual. The NRA/KKK/GOP has indeed brought about the a stalemate when we all know what needs to be done to prevent this kind of fire power from causing this kind of havoc again.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 4, 2017 6:25 PM
Comment #420393

The Left seem to believe that the “right” laws will govern human behavior and can solve our problems relating to gun violence.

Sure do wish they would share them with the rest of us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2017 6:40 PM
Comment #420394

The left has no answers. Simply the same old rhetoric that they have been spouting for the past 50 years. The mouthpiece’s for the left are the first to politicize a tragedy for the purpose of doing away with the 2nd amendment. But these same mouthpieces who would disarm the American people, are the same who wouldn’t travel without their armed escorts. The same people who are calling Trump a Hitler or dictator, are the same who want to disarm Americans. Wasn’t it Hitler and the other little despots who disarmed the citizenry when taking power?

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2017 8:02 PM
Comment #420395

kctim, your membership authorizes you to watch this Last Week Tonight video from way back to the Orlando Massacre that was re-posted today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ECYMvjU52E

Posted by: ohrealy at October 4, 2017 8:06 PM
Comment #420398

It’s clear that a significant portion of Americans are too indifferent to gun violence to sacrifice feel-good objects that do not bring any tangible benefits to their lives. Such is the nature of democracy and we all have to live with that decision.

Owning firearms designed to shoot and kill people in offensive situations grants certain people a mental benefit that they feel is worth the sacrifice of hundreds of their brethren each year.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2017 8:44 PM
Comment #420403

WP, we have had this conversation with you before. Might I suggest an article written by a gun control advocate in the WP dated 10/3 by Leah Libresco. She researched the subject of gun control with the same beliefs as you. She learned something that you haven’t been able to understand. It doesn’t matter what kind of rifle you have, cosmetics can be purchased and added by the owner to make the rifle look like an “assault rifle”. If the left actually has a plan for how to deal with the “problem” of the 2nd amendment, by all means share it. All the left has is hyperbole based on emotion. “GOD…we’re all gonna die”

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2017 9:17 PM
Comment #420404

All of those injured are responsible for paying their own medical costs, and fundraising will hopefully pay for some or all of that, but why should anyone injured in such a way have to pay for any of it, or have people beg to pay for it?

Posted by: ohrealy at October 4, 2017 9:18 PM
Comment #420405

Why do you suppose the founding fathers placed the right for the common people to own firearms in the Bill of Rights? Was it so the American people could protect themselves from criminals or was it so they could protect themselves from a corrupt government? Or have we just outlived this part of the Bill of Rights? My guess is that in the infinite wisdom of our founding fathers, they understood the evils of humanity much better than the pseudo scholars of today. In fact, I don’t believe the politicians of today even come close to being able to write the documents they wrote.

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2017 9:34 PM
Comment #420407

If what the liberal hacks are saying is true; that the country music fans are republicans and Trump supporters, then we must assume they have the means to take care of their own medical bills.

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2017 9:40 PM
Comment #420408

Kerkorian, Wynn, and the Pritzkers should be paying the entire medical expenses and burial expenses of everyone shot from the Mandalay Bay.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 4, 2017 10:49 PM
Comment #420409

“Wasn’t it Hitler and the other little despots who disarmed the citizenry when taking power?”

No, Blaine. Hitler didn’t disarm the German people when taking power. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf

Posted by: Rich at October 5, 2017 12:04 AM
Comment #420410

“Why do you suppose the founding fathers placed the right for the common people to own firearms in the Bill of Rights?”

The Virginians- Jefferson and the slave owners- wanted to arm a well regulated militia because of fear of slave revolts. There were 200 or more slave revolts in early American history, and the slave owners were quite right to be terrified of them.

Slave revolts were brewing abroad in the late 1700’s and the Founding Fathers were well aware of them. A slave revolt in the French colony of Haiti ended in a genocidal three way race war between blacks, whites, and mulattos. It was brutal in ways it is hard for us to even imagine. The surviving white Frenchmen fled to Louisiana.

We try to make sense of the 2nd amendment, but the fact is, the historical context of slavery and slave revolts makes it hard to understand in this day and age.

For anyone interested, read the Crossroads Trilogy, a series about Toussaint Louverture, and perhaps the most remarkable religious ceremony of all time, the voodoo ceremony at Bois Caiman.

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2017 12:13 AM
Comment #420412

phx8

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with slave revolts. But nice try.

Posted by: dbs at October 5, 2017 6:27 AM
Comment #420414

warren

“It’s clear that a significant portion of Americans are too indifferent to gun violence to sacrifice feel-good objects that do not bring any tangible benefits to their lives”

Thankfully those tangible benefits are rarely needed, but when they are, they are very tangible.


“Owning firearms designed to shoot and kill people in offensive situations grants certain people a mental benefit that they feel is worth the sacrifice”

That is the point of the 2nd amendment. Shooting tyrants requires arms capable of standing up in a fight with the tyrants agents. Between the last 2 shootings how many were killed by automobiles ? But you hear no one suggesting we take them away and rely on gov’t for all our transportation needs. You need to put things in perspective.

Posted by: dbs at October 5, 2017 6:40 AM
Comment #420417

ohrealy

“This was obviously a very hate-filled individual. The NRA/KKK/GOP has indeed brought about the a stalemate”

Only one here that seems to be doing any hating is you. Must take a lot of energy to expend so much effort hating those who disagree with you.

Posted by: dbs at October 5, 2017 7:59 AM
Comment #420421

Rich, thanks for your link, but did you read it? The writer concludes with this thought:

“These and other passages are
transparent: Frick and Hitler intended to liberalize gun control laws in Germany
for “trustworthy” German citizens, while disarming “unreliable” persons,
especially opponents of National Socialism and Jews. In order to disarm Jews,
the Nazi government used both the “trustworthiness” requirements originally
legislated in 1928, as well as more direct regulations denying Jews the right to
manufacture or possess firearms. It is absurd to even try to characterize thisas either pro-or anti-gun control. But if forced to, it seems fair to
conclude—at least preliminarily—that the Nazis were in favor of less gun
control than the Weimar Republic for the “trustworthy” German citizen—while
disarming and engaging in a genocide of the Jewish population.”

The thesis was not denying that Hitler chose to disarm his opponents; but rather to present both sides to the facts.

phx8, thanks for the leftist revisionist history, but here are the facts:

From the Tenth Amendment Center, “2nd Amendment, Original Meaning and Purpose”

When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.

One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:


“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State”

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.

For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.

As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.

So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”

And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.

Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.

So your argument, like Rich’s is false.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2017 9:50 AM
Comment #420422

What Blaine said ^^^^^^^^^

Posted by: dbs at October 5, 2017 10:05 AM
Comment #420423

Ohrealy said:

The NRA/KKK/GOP has indeed brought about the a stalemate when we all know what needs to be done to prevent this kind of fire power from causing this kind of havoc again.

What is it with you guys on the left; are you not able to talk without revising history?

You link the KKK with the GOP and the NRA:

First, the KKK had it’s origins in the Democratic Party. Your side owns this group. They have nothing to do with the GOP.

Secondly, the NRA is a well respected organization that has not only trained Law Enforcement agencies and military, but has also organized training and safety programs for the youth of America.

But other than trying to divide America and spew hatred, what exactly has your side ever done to cut violence in America? Name one program that your side has done to prevent inner-city black on black violence that has been the cause of thousands of deaths?

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2017 10:12 AM
Comment #420425

Here is a very well written article on the origins of the 2nd Amendment and the need for the southern states to protect themselves from slave revolts. The article quotes Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison at length:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

In previous drafts, the 2nd Amendment read “country” in place of “state.” This was changed at the end specifically to address the need of the southern states to protect themselves from slave uprisings. It was a very important consideration at the time. Free Blacks fought along Washington in the Continental Army, and during the Revolutionary War the British encouraged Blacks to join them and earn their freedom.

So the 2nd Amendment was, in a sense, written to prevent federal tyranny over states. Northern states had few slaves, and the abolitionist movement was strong in the north even then. The tyranny that was feared was that the federal government would free the slaves, or that Congress- the “country”- would refuse to act to protect southern states from their own slaves. That is why the 2nd called for a “well regulated militia” as a matter of state defense.

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2017 10:53 AM
Comment #420433

So you quote an article by Carl T. Bogus (fitting name) who quotes a California professor, who writes a hypothetical article explaining the real reasons for the 2nd amendment and his hypothetical reasons for a hidden meaning within the 2nd amendment that included slave patrols and ensuring that blacks did not have access to firearms. Only in the mind of a leftist can such conspiracy garbage be conceived. Tell us ph, when the US Supreme Court upheld the 2nd amendment, were they made aware of this conspiracy theory?

What is hilarious is the fact that ph not only introduces the hypothetical conspiracy theory, but then he begins to build upon it as if it was a documented fact.

Further proof that ph and his cohorts can never be taken seriously.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2017 11:53 AM
Comment #420443

“Such is the nature of democracy and we all have to live with that decision.”

Sorry to burst your Liberal bubble Warren, but we didn’t wake up one day and decide it would be a good idea to allow people to own a firearm. Check on why this is a “right” found in the Constitution.

We Conservatives will not force guns on anyone who doesn’t want one.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2017 2:53 PM
Comment #420445

Obama did more for gun sales than anyone, that is, until the democrats politicized the Las Vegas shooting. Another bump in sales.

Posted by: George at October 5, 2017 3:40 PM
Comment #420446

Blaine,
There is no conspiracy theory about blacks involved in the history behind the 2nd Amendment. Slavery was a big concern for the Virginian slave owners like Jefferson and Mason. The purpose of the 2nd was not to deny weapons to blacks. Free blacks could carry weapons. The problem being addressed was the need of slave states to ensure their militias- which they called “slave patrols”- were allowed to prevent and put down slave insurrections. As Patrick Henry wrote, in Virginia alone there were 236,000 slaves.

“It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.”

As for the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it gives individuals the right to own guns, that is a very recent take.

” In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”

“In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.”
Wikipedia, 2nd Amendment

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2017 4:32 PM
Comment #420447

“As for the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it gives individuals the right to own guns, that is a very recent take.”

Is there something wrong with you ph? The 2nd amendment was always about the individuals rights to own weapons. Did you even read comment #420421? If you had, you would know the founding fathers set up the 2nd amendment rights for individuals. You have these crazy little pre-conceived ideas in your head and anything outside of those ideas are ignored. The idea of the 2nd amendment being for individuals clashes with your pre-conceived idea of militia hunting parties for blacks, so you just ignore it.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2017 5:20 PM
Comment #420450

Stay cool Blaine. Phx8 just likes to post comments that sound stupid. There is no argument one can make that will force the real phx8 to come forward. He is afraid to publicly embrace constitutional principles and capitalistic theories.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2017 5:30 PM
Comment #420456

And Royal Flush is afraid of responding to reasonable arguments when he is cornered, choosing to throw insults instead.

Thankfully those tangible benefits are rarely needed, but when they are, they are very tangible.

Ignoring all uses of guns apart from protecting an individual from criminal violence, a semiautomatic with expanded magazines provides negligible benefit over those provided by a .22 revolver. While there is ample evidence of civilians using guns to impose “psychological stops” on would-be criminals, I am aware of no cases where it was necessary to physical incapacitate the would-be criminal. Apart from encounters with law enforcement, people will not continue to commit their crime when they are experiencing the extreme pain of being shot with a .22 revolver.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2017 8:15 PM
Comment #420457

I was shot by a .22 caliber rifle at point blank. It bounced off the bone and exited about 4 inches below where it entered. The people with me were more shaken than I was. I asked one of them for their shirt to bandage the wound. I bandaged the entry hole only to discover the exit hole bleeding. I then bandaged the exit wound. I then waited for the ambulance.

Had I been in a rage and hell bent on attacking someone who then shot me with a .22 I wouldn’t have even noticed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 5, 2017 8:47 PM
Comment #420458

Now that I think about it, I actually bandaged the bigger exit wound first and then I noticed the smaller entry wound because it was then it started bleeding.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 5, 2017 9:06 PM
Comment #420459

I think we have traveled this road with Warren Porter before. First, he has zero knowledge of weapons. Second, he cannot comprendo anything dealing with a weapon. The best I can say to WP is you shoot the attacker with your pop gun and I’ll use my 9mm. I wonder why the police don’t carry .22’s?

I wonder if Bill or Hillary’s bodyguards are carrying .22’s?

I just re-read Porter’s ignorant statement. Does Porter understand that most criminal attacks are done by people who are high on drugs? And does Porter understand that most criminals high on crack or meth can’t even be stopped with a single shot from the standard police 9mm or .40 cal? What would a .22 do to a meth crazed assailant? Besides make him angry. Go back to your video games little boy.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2017 9:49 PM
Comment #420460

So far this year, 552 children ages 0-11 have been killed or injured by guns.

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2017 10:10 PM
Comment #420466

What democrat controlled gun free cities were they from; Chicago, Detroit, LA…????

Don’t just spout the numbers; break them down. This is an old trick from the socialists to create shock and awe.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2017 11:05 PM
Comment #420472

warren

“a semiautomatic with expanded magazines provides negligible benefit over those provided by a .22 revolver.”

Sorry, but you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.


phx8

“As for the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it gives individuals the right to own guns, that is a very recent take.”

What do you consider recent ?


“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Posted by: dbs at October 6, 2017 7:08 AM
Comment #420474

Blaine


“I can say to WP is you shoot the attacker with your pop gun and I’ll use my 9mm. I wonder why the police don’t carry .22’s?”

OH you are opening up a can of worms. I have had the serviceable caliber debate before, and it wen’t nowhere. I would add that handguns in general are lousy at stopping motivated attackers. People that are willing to fight until the lights go out. A rifle is a much better option but not very easy to conceal. Lol The 5.56 is an excellent defensive round and actually less of an over penetration hazard than most pistol ammunition, or buck shot. I keep an M4 with a light, and an aimpoint dot for home defense.

Posted by: dbs at October 6, 2017 7:24 AM
Comment #420475

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEemOMsz5Q8

Posted by: dbs at October 6, 2017 8:05 AM
Comment #420476

ohrealy, we don’t have enough information yet to determine what his state of mind or motive were.

The leftists have been using activist groups, courts and reps to force their desires and beliefs onto all. This stalemate was reached when they had forced the country too far left.

The divisiveness is a result of the juvenile name calling the leftists use to silence their opposition and garner support for their leftist positions. Your sad attempt to equate the NRA and GOP to the kkk is a perfect example.

“we all know what needs to be done to prevent this kind of fire power from causing this kind of havoc again.”

Yes we do, but such a Utopian fantasy can never exist in reality, which is why left-wing knee-jerk emotional reactions do not work.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2017 9:56 AM
Comment #420477

dubs, I agree with you completely. But for the sake of the firearms ignorance of Porter, I just keep it as simple as possible. I have been in this debate with him before. It’s hard to explain something to someone who has a pre-conceived ideology and is not willing learn. First, Warren Porter is a liberal who blames America for the ills of the world; secondly, he believes the constitution and bill of rights are evolving documents and should be re-written in the image of the left; lastly, he believes all Americans should be disarmed and left to the terror of the criminal element. Regarding, home defense, 12 gauge with buckshot. Personal CCW; ranges from .40, 9mm, or sometimes .357 or .380. In fact, most times I carry more than one.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2017 10:03 AM
Comment #420480

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saof4B54yLI

Posted by: dbs at October 6, 2017 11:03 AM
Comment #420483

Mr. Porter, in another column, advocates police officers, involved in an on-the-job fatal shooting, be denied “due process”.

One can reckon that Warren Porter is both; anti-gun and anti-police.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2017 3:15 PM
Comment #420593
Yes we do, but such a Utopian fantasy can never exist in reality, which is why left-wing knee-jerk emotional reactions do not work. Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2017 9:56 AM

As opposed to right wing knee jerk emotional reactions? We have to face the reality that right wing terrorism is a bigger threat here than islam or mexican hombres. Gun manufacturers control what the legislatures do, so they are preventing us from stopping these terrorists getting these kinds of weapons.

Sorry, I missed your comment. It was in between piles of garbage on the page. Keep stepping away from the dark side.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 11, 2017 8:40 PM
Comment #420600

Today’s Gun Violence Update:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZOmrzBTHSY

Posted by: ohrealy at October 11, 2017 9:27 PM
Comment #421054

Right! Ideally you described it all, that was it!

Posted by: kajj88 at October 27, 2017 7:39 AM
Post a comment