Radical Gun Activists and the Westboro Baptist Church Have More in Common Than You Might Think

sarah-gun-nutOn the surface, radical gun activists (commonly referred to as gun nuts) and Westboro Baptist Church members might not seem to have a whole lot in common.  Gun activists are fairly clear with what they want (more guns – everywhere) whereas the Westboro Baptist Church focuses on an irrational hatred and fear of homosexuality (among other things).

But when I see these open carry activists claiming they have the right to “protest” by standing on street corners (or going into businesses) with loaded semi-automatic assault rifles strapped to their backs, all I see are ignorant jackasses making fools out of themselves.

Much in the same way I view the knuckle-dragging parasites over at the Westboro Baptist Church when they protest funerals of fallen soldiers or whomever they feel might get them some attention.

Because let’s face it, both groups are claiming the exact same thing to justify their protests – it’s their Constitutional right.

It’s like a discussion I had with a friend of mine today who posted a video of a veteran going off about gun rights and how he fought, and had friends die, to protect our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

But you know another thing that same gun-loving veteran fought for?  The right for the Westboro Baptist Church to protest the funerals of his friends who died.  Because their rights are also constitutionally protected.  So I wondered if that same veteran would also speak so passionately in support of the right for the Westboro Baptist Church to protest a funeral of one of his fallen friends?

I highly doubt it.  So, you see, simply having the Constitutional right to do something doesn’t magically justify whatever it is that you’re doing.

If these gun nuts are mostly justifying their right to openly carry loaded semi-automatic rifles out in public based on it being a “Constitutional right,” then they should go stand side by side with the Westboro Baptist Church who claims the exact same thing when they hold their disgusting protests.

Because to these gun nuts, if it’s just about them being proud to “exercise their Constitutional rights,” without any thought as to the possible consequences of irresponsibility exercising those rights, then they have to endorse and support any disgusting form of expression that’s protected by our Constitution.

And that’s generally the response I get from many of these gun rights people.  It’s just all about celebrating our Constitutional rights.  You know the idiotic saying, “If you don’t use it, you lose it.”

Well, these gun nuts are “using” their Second Amendment rights much in the same way the Westboro Baptist Church is using their First Amendment rights.

Then there’s also the fact that many of these gun rights activists believe that our Constitution is inspired by God, therefore our Second Amendment is a “God-given right.”

Much in the same way the Westboro Baptist Church claims that their hatred is also justified by God.

Though don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying most people who support gun rights are anything like these hate-filled piles of garbage who comprise the Westboro Baptist Church.

But if I were to walk up to an open carry activist, and a protesting member of the Westboro Baptist Church, then ask them what gives them the right be out in public demonstrating – both would give me the same answer, “It’s my Constitutional right to do so.”

And that’s what I mean when I say that just because our Constitution gives someone the right to do something, doesn’t make what they’re doing right.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Matt

    As one of my friends fathers always used to tell me, “just because you have the freedom to say what ever you want doesn’t mean someone’s not going to punch you in the face for saying it.”

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      ahhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, matt: im loving that
      please send me glenn beck and ted nugent and rush Limbaugh when NO ONE is around

  • Brian

    Night and day. Most conservative pro-gun rights people HATE the Westborough Baptists church. As for the “open carry” of long guns that you dislike keep in mind its a backlash against all the Ds going after gun rights. the W Baptists are jerks but the gov is not trying to ban the Baptist church. The gov is going after gun rights. Even in the Russian mess Obama is going after the 2A. AK rifles are banned from import under the excuse of economic sanctions. But Russian VODKA is not banned from import. IF sanctions were important, ALL Russian imports would be banned. Another thing on the open carry of long guns, in Texas they cannot simply open carry a handgun on a holster. they can conceal carry but not open carry so if they want to protest with an open carry gun it has to be long guns. In Texas its legal to open carry a long gun but NOT a handgun in a hip holster. So if you don’t like the open carry of long guns then you have to tell the texas state gov to have some common sense and allow open carry of handguns. banning open carry of long guns is not the answer because people who hunt have to have the ability to transport their hunting guns from home to their locations without having to worry about a rifle or shotgun being viewed (open carry) in the back of a pick up or other petty BS.

    • ‘Ibrahim M Shabazz

      you must be tired after shoveling all that bullshit

      • Retrodude

        One would think so.

    • Retrodude

      Nobody is banning your beloved guns, turbo. *sighs*

      • Brian

        Because they cant. Don’t have the political power to do so. If the Ds keep the Senate and take the house this fall with Obama still in the WH, then we will see what happens when Obama has a rubber stamp congress and no fear of having to worry about a re-election like he did in 09-10. If he has a rubber stamp congress he will do whatever he wants because he has nothing to worry about.

      • Retrodude

        For God’s sakes, you guys are beyond paranoid. What makes you think Obama is gonna come for your guns? That argument is SO old it’s ridiculous. Clinton didn’t come for your guns, neither will Obama. How in the hell would one even attempt to confiscate the MILLIONS of guns in this country? And why? Trust me- NOBODY WANTS YOUR DAMN GUNS.

      • Brian

        1. If the D party is “not after our guns” then why do liberals and gun control groups keep making comments about doing so. there are countless times of them making such remarks. Even IF they are lying to pander to a gun control crowd to get votes, then they should stop it. Every time someone says a gun ban comment it just pours fuel on to that fire. 2 On of the Pelosi bills proposed winter of 2012-13 after Sandy hook tragedy stated that they would not confiscate guns but the min a gun owner died the guns would be confiscated by the gov. and certain guns would be banned for sale or transfer permanently. So even IF gun owners could have kept certain guns future generations would not have been allowed to inherit them. But Pelosi’s bill was thrown out.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        there are over 3 million guns in America,,,,,,,,,,,more sold every day
        =========================================
        if the DEMS ” came for ur guns” they would need a a fleet of carriers to carry them away

      • Nemisis

        the number is in excess of 330 million.

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        I stand corrected
        perhaps 2 fleets of carriers?

      • Nemisis

        Your statement was correct in that there are over 3 million. I was injecting a higher number to bolster your position.

      • Brian- I have been hearing for 6 years now that Obama and the Democrats are coming for my guns. Am I the only republican who knows he and or they are not coming for my guns.

        I am a republican voter who will be the first to point out that Ronald Reagan passed some of broadest “gun control” regulations fueling this debate!

        I am a free American Citizen! What I am not is a NRA card carrying extremist gun nut!

      • Nemisis

        NRA…Nation gun Registration Agency…

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        donlad I luv ya!!!
        sadly; now FOX “news” will be calling U an anti American muslim Kenyan martian communist radical Christian who wants sharia law

      • Nemisis

        RR banned guns. plastic, or non metallic guns…how does that make you feel?
        Knowing that Obama has not banned any gun, yet Ronnie Reagan did.

        So that dude in Texas so proud of his accomplishment of printing a plastic gun on a 3d printer committed a felony based on a law enacted by his lordship Reagan.

        Bills are not laws, there are thousands of bills that do not become laws. Unfortunately too many that are unconstitutional do make it into law.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        hey cretin: asking for gun REGISTRATION and background checks ( see: sales) while wanting LIMITS upon cartridge size is NOT “coming for your guns”
        ===========================================
        unless of course U singularly suckle the flaccid tete of the NRA and FOX “news”

      • Brian

        1 We already have background checks. go to a store and try it some day and see what happens. Order a gun from an online store and see what happens when you want it shipped to you. they wont. they ship it to an FFL dealer in your area and you have to pass the background check to take possession of said gun. Don’t pass the background check the sale is canceled. 2 we don’t need gun registration. A car has to be registered because the property & sales taxes on the cars pays for road maintenance and snow removal (plus gas taxes) expenses. If you buy a gun and use it for home defense it does not use taxpayer dollars so therefore registration is not needed. Plus the only way to enforce it is to the gov to door to door and check serial numbers of guns to make sure you have the guns you claim to have registered. Its not the gov business to know what guns or how many guns a person possesses. If a gun can legally be sold in a store it can be legally owned by a non felon civilian over 18 for long gun or 21 for a handgun. Funny thing. the left goes apeshit when any regulation on abortion is proposed by an R saying its against a constitutional right of a woman. but they constantly are trying to go after gun rights. and its not just cartridge size the left is going after. IF the left had their way pistol grips or forward grips which do nothing to make a gun more or less lethal would be banned. According to Fienstine if she had her way, if some red-neck welds a forward grip to great grandpa’s rusted single shot folding shotgun from the 1930s its legally a fierce scary assault-rifle had her gun control bill of early 2013 pass. Even though with a fwd grip its still a single shot shotgun.
        the reason Rs and the NRA fight the left’s gun control attempts so badly is that there is no common sense in them but the same type of big gov nanny state red tape that they pulled with Obamacare.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        wow! then explain how I purchased a pistol from my long time friend ( big gun enthusiast) 8 months ago for CASH and had no backround check?
        explain that– and the COUNTLESS OTHER episodes as such– to me

      • Brian

        LOL. HMM If you are truly a gun owner, and desired gun rights and respected the constitution then you would not have a problem with your “private sale”. But you bought a gun from a long time friend. If you hated the sale so damn much then why did you do it. (which leads me to believe that you did not make such a sale yourself.) Private sales are legal and should be. And guess what? there are already laws on the books regarding private sales. If A felon buys a gun from a private sale to dodge the background check, its a FELONY and the guy selling to a felon is guilty of providing a gun to a FELON and is now a felon himself. I don’t know where you live but here in Nebraska for anyone to purchase a handgun whether from a store OR private sale the buyer must have a specific handgun permit issued by the county sheriff of their residence. Or a conceal carry permit issued by the state patrol. To get both or either permit one has to pass a background check by Law enforcement. But since you complain so much about a private sale I really don’t think you are a gun owner and if you were a gun owner you would already be educated on such matters as knowing that straw purchases were illegal if they were used to get a gun to a felon.

      • Brian

        Btw if a parent or spouse wanted to buy a gun and give it to a friend, sibling, parent, spouse, it should NOT be illegal. Only exception is should be and ONLY exception is sale to a felon or underage person.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I live in ( se) florida,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, very very lax laws. I am debating getting my concealed which means a PERMIT. I needed NO license to PURCHASE. I didn’t have to inform state/local OF my purchase. I bought it for home; if I drive with it I have 2 have it secured (holster/ glovebox ETC) I can show it (open carry) at a show or while practicing -which I do– but delightfully FLORIDA is NOT one of those backwards regressive states which allow idiots to run around showcasing their toy.
        care to tell me I don’t own/ did not buy a gun again??
        I have no problem with MY sale…… I have a problem with OTHERS sales and THEIR inabilities to keep those guns from being used by trash

      • Brian

        There are already FEDERAL laws on the books regarding private sales. If a felon is involved then the sale/transfer ect is a felony and both buyer and seller are in deep shit legally. the key is to enforce the law and lock up the offenders so they don’t “repeat” again. the only way to stop it from happening in the first place is to literally turn gun ownership into a police state. register all guns and ban private sales by making every gun owner have to take their guns to a registered FFL dealer and use them as a middleman for the sale by having them sign paperwork for the deal. Including gift giving by parents children/spouses/siblings. A major pain in the ass. If I want to give my kids a gun as a gift when they are 18 or 21 (handgun). The hassle still wont stop thugs passing stolen guns among each other anyway.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        so————- regulate it and tax it ( see: free enterprise/ repubs love that) I also think weed and cocaine and gambling and prostitution should be legal and taxed and regulated as are alcohol and cigs. we need the money: keep it in America– build new roads/ bridges/ schools/ stuff that CREATES JOBS..;;
        America wants a gun? make it just like when U buy a house or a horse or a car or get married…..
        NO PROBLEM!!! time for some OTHER American to MAKE MONEY

      • Brian

        Guns are already regulated and taxed. Buy a gun and/or ammo you pay sales tax just like diapers for the baby and a dress for the wife. the gun store that you bought the gun pays income taxes on the sales of guns and property taxes on the building they operate from. If you want to do more with your gun like hunting you have to buy a license to hunt and then specific permits (Deer) or stamps (duck/waterfowl). If you want to get a conceal carry permit after paying for and passing the gun training class you have to pay another fee (tax) to the gov issuing said permit. So the gov gets plenty of taxes on guns. As for regulations if you go to the ATF website or other research that if you add up the separate gun laws at the local, county, state, and federal level there are literally thousands of laws & regulations on the books. Even the EPA is in the mix with certain types of ammo are not allowed to be used. For example in Iowa for years the type of metal used in shotgun shotshell is regulated because if a hunter misses the duck he is shooting at there is fear that lead might poison the land. And in some locations Ranges where people practice by renting a lane ban some certain types of ammo for the same reasons. So there are plenty of regulations and taxes on gun owners.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        excellent points!!! so WHY o WHY does the tea party NRA bemoan gun registration and limiting capacities on ” assault” rifles at 12 shots????
        do U need 12 shots to shoot the ” bad guy” or a bear?

      • Brian

        As for making gambling, weed, prostitution, cocaine legal so its taxed I don’t have a problem with them if for no other reason to eliminate the gang cartels power. What are they going to deal when that same product can be sold at the local wal mart? lol But guns are a constitutional right. Lefties wont tolerate spending money for an ID because that’s an indirect poll tax on the poor and not fair. (although buying an ID at the local DMV in their eyes not a problem if a person wants a gun) So any taxes on simply possessing guns besides the sales tax to purchase a gun in my eyes wrong and technically unconstitutional for the same logic that a poll tax is for voters.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I didn’t say tax GUNS above whats done,,,,, I said register them and keep magazine sizes at – say: 12?
        also– I 100% agree with the destruction of gangs and cartels sources of $$$

      • Brian

        I don’t watch FOX news. but I find it amusing anytime the left argues with someone they always jump up and down and scream FOX news. Like Fox is the only news source out there.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        FOX ” news” is NOT a news source; unless u may consider McDonalds a FOOD store

      • Brian

        As I stated I don’t watch FOX so I wont comment on them. But I still find it amusing anytime a lefty argues with a conservative they always sooner or later jump up and down screaming FOX! lol

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        the NRA and FOX “news” fuels this ersatz fire
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no one is coming for Americas guns

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        pray tell; O brian— when exactly is ” Obama coming 4 ur guns”??

      • Guest

        I have been hearing for 6 years now that Obama and the Democrats are coming for my guns. Am I the only republican who knows he and or they are not coming for my guns.

        I am a republican voter who will be the first to point out that Ronald Reagan passed some of broadest “gun control” regulations fueling this debate!

        I am a free American Citizen! What I am not is a NRA card carrying extremist gun nut!

      • Brian

        Reagan signed a gun control law for the state of California in 1968 to go after the wave of radical domestic terrorism that rose during the Viet nam war. Nothing major was signed by him as president at the national level.

      • Nemisis

        Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988

      • Brian

        That bill was meaningless based on a wrongful myth. the Glock 17 came out in the mid 80s and it had the Polymer frame and people wrongly thought that the plastic would not show up on Airport metal detectors which is wrong because the firing parts like springs and firing pin and barrel inside the polymer frame are made of metal. Not to mention the bullets in the magazine. So people freaked out and thought Glocks could not be seen on xray or metal detector machines. So they passed the undetectable firearms act of 88 to force all handguns to be “visible” on x-ray and metal detector machines which they were anyway. So in reality the bill is meaningless. It would be like passing a law to say that cars mad out of fiberglass today must be able to be picked up by a metal detector. but will anyway because engines and transmissions are made of metal anyway. Same mentality. So this gun control law is worthless and I would bet Reagan signed this bill into law in order to get D support for important things that later won the Cold war.

      • Nemisis

        So….it’s extension in 2013 is just as useless as it was 1988…And Reagan won the cold war…not culmination of decades of arms races, space races, and economic assault…it was Reagan and Bonzo (Bush) declaring Russia as the evil empire.

        Every aspect of a gun can be made out of plastics and non-metallic materials such as fiber-glass, Kevlar, carbon-fiber, that includes bullets, shell casings, clips, clip springs, frames. etc.
        The belief that there is too much stress and pressure on a barrel or firing mechanism is an incorrect belief. A non-lead bullet does not need as much gun-powder, the propellant does not even need to be gun powder. That also goes for regular guns. The propellent can be made of the same stuff used in an airbag just not as much.

      • Brian

        Reagan did win the Cold War. Yes it went on for decades, but it was Reagan who got intell from the CIA stating the Soviet economy was weaker then what their own gov believed so he did many things that were different then his Cold War era processors that in time drove the USSR to bankruptcy, thus ending the Cold War with an American victory at the time. In fact in the Reagan Library is a framed letter from CIA officials after he was out of office stating Russian intell reports stating that Reagan’s policies pushed the USSR into economic collapse. those policies: 1 He spent a lot of money modernizing the US military (which needed it anyway. In 1980 the US was still using Viet Nam war era weapons designed in the late 50s/early 60s and needed upgrading.) 2 He negotiated oil deals with the Saudi’s to flood the market with crude and create a glut and lead to cheap crude and the USSR made a ton of money selling oil to commie nations and the cheap crude was a loss of revenue for them and badly hurt their nation’s budget. 3 He had the CIA help the afghan rebels fight the Soviet invasion in the 80s which lead the war drag on and cost the Soviets badly in time, treasure and blood. By the late 1980s the Soviet was bankrupt and no will power to stop the fall of Berlin wall, and the rest of the Warsaw commie Eastern Europe govs from falling (Poland, Chec Republic, others) and by 1991 they officialy went broke. Reagan had partners in British Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paull II and Polish Solidarity Lech Walesa as well. but Reagan was the leader who put all the pieces of the puzzle together. He was the right person at the right time. in World history. the Cold War ended without the big bang nuke war the world feared for 45 Years after WWII ended.
        As for the FOPA 1986 being extended. Are you supporting its extension or protesting it? Either way Since Obama extended it its his baby now. For 7 years after 9/11 I listened to Ds bitch and complain about the Patriot act. then when Obama comes in 09 with total control of congress (both houses) he had a chance to repeal the hated bill. Not only he refused but he extended expiring parts. So If you liberals hated the PA it became Obama’s baby in 09 when he refused to get rid of it.

      • Nemisis

        1) He continued a 12 step plan put in place back in the late 50’s.

        2) Modernized the military with weapon systems designed in the 60’s and 70’s . Now that’s planing.

        3) The oil glut of the 80’s was due to OPEC not metering their output following the shortage of the 70’s, By 1980 Russia was the world’s largest producer of oil, not OPEC nations. In 1979 Carter signed the executive order that removed market controls from petroleum products. Reagan only continued another man’s work.
        OPEC, of which Saudi Arabia is a member, decreased production in the 1980’s in an effort to drive prices up contrary to your claim of OPEC flooding the market. Non-OPEC nations, which Saudi Arabia is not a member, increased production. I think you may give too much credit to Reagan for this winning a war of economics.
        I actively did not fight in the cold war, I did serve on a SSBN during that time, I can tell you our gear was old and still worked. No need to update there. I’d wager some folks are wishing it was still in place. Other things like tanks, planes, etc..sure update that, but understand that it is the defense industry’s job to make money. What better way then to update an entire military.
        Even if the update is more expensive and not as good as what it replaces.

        Education of the masses in the soviet bloc is what took down the Berlin wall.
        The economics of it? I’ll give him credit. His economic plans sure have a way of disabling an economy. Reagan was simply the conductor of the train, when the train arrived at the station. Nothing he did was the “straw” that broke the camels back. The Soviet Union collapsed from within. As it was planned back in the 50’s. Read Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984 (by Andrei Alekseevich Amalrik)
        Published in 1970, a few years before R&B played in the White House.

        4) He armed and trained the Afghan rebels and yes that prolonged the Russia-Afghan war.
        It also created Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

        5) He armed the enemy of an ally which seeded the events that would become the Gulf War.
        In selling arms to Iran he committed an impeachable offense for violating a specific ban on trade with Iran. He then took the money from this sale and gave it to rebel group.
        Which violated US law again. Another impeachable offense.
        He then had Oliver North take the blame for him while congress was pissing itself over those two events. That action is called witness tampering and conspiracy to commit perjury, and a number of conspiracies related to the concealment of the crimes, each another impeachable offense.
        Just for the record, I didn’t care at the time.

        Now, in retrospect I see our borders flooded by a wave of refugees from the very governments that Reagan helped put in power or destabilize. In effect, the “Crises at the Border” is a trickle down effect of his foreign polices and illegal dealings with Iran.
        Thank you Saint Reagan.

        6) FOPA~ Congress extends laws not presidents.
        Remember this is the congress that can’t agree on which way the toilet paper should hang.
        As for it’s teeth… Still can’t go buy a gun that can’t be detected. Effective.
        I am for it. I am also for biometric locking guns, I am not against civilian ownership of military grade weapons. I am against a certified nut-job from possessing, or owning any weapons not just a gun.

        7) Dems only had a simple majority in ’09, and basically the gop had the same thing the previous 10 years. A situation that has existed since the 1920’s the control waivers side to side but only by a few points and never reaching full majority. A simple majority is not the same as full control. I shudder to think what would happen if a single party ever had a full majority, gop or dem.
        That, coupled with extreme partisan politics, is why we have congressional dead lock.

        As for the repeal of the PA. Peruse a real news outlet, you will find that since 2001 some members of congress, most notably the one that read the act, have been in opposition to it.
        In 2009 Obama began work to alter the law to remove the most damaging articles to our presumption of privacy, the ones that violate the 4th.
        Obama has taken the steps that have resulted in the changes to the PA that reinstated the privacy of Americans. If congressional GOP wasn’t so hell bent on opposing everything Obama is for, the PA would be repealed. After all who wants to be know as the guy that brought down the “Patriot Act”? If it were named the “Screwing the 4th Amendment Act” it would never have seen the light of day.

        Thank you Saint Bush Jr.

        I do enjoy this discussion.

      • Brian

        Obama tries to improve the 4A? Are you kidding? Joe Bidden said in public that people on cell phones should not expect a right to privacy. Its Obama who as abused the PA having the NSA spying on citizens not to mention having the IRS abuse conservative groups and having desk jockeys fall on the sword for it. That’s Why nothing sticks to Obama, he has low level smucks fall on the sword for him. the IRS just happened to have several hard drive crashes with crucial e-mails about the scandal. And the left loves to point out the missing minutes on the Nixon tapes. I don’t condone Nixon crap but at least he resigned when it was obvious the jig was up. As for arming the afghan rebels, the bigger enemy at the time was the USSR. No one In the 80s expected cave dwelling camel riders to in 20 years bite the hand that fed them and kill 3K Americans on 9/11. But at the time the whole world feared a final “big bang” between US/USSR nukes and with you being a SSBN sailor you were trained and well aware of the possibilities of your Commanding Officers getting orders to “turn their keys” . (BTW thank you for your service. You were part of that Peace through Strength” Deterrent that kept the US safe during that era. thank you!). Btw those rebels were not the first nation that the US helped in one war that in time attacked or fought the US in future wars. Japan and Italy were WWI allies but obviously opposing forces 20 years later. FDR sent millions of dollars of “lend lease” materials to both USSR and China during WWII but no one points out that they became Cold War opponents. Chinese soldiers trained by the US against Japan later fought the same US forces in Korea just 5 years later after WWII ended. So anyone critical of Reagan for arming rebels against the Soviets need to keep in mind it was a good 10-15 years before they planned on attacking the west from when Reagan started to help them in 81-2 to the mid 90s when OBL started to take advantage of the power vacuum from the fall of the USSR. As I stated earlier no one in 1981 ever imagined those rebels attacking the US in 01. As for the Contra part. the reason those illegals are flooding the border is the drug cartels who are running things in Central America, not the Cold War era fighting between the Contras and Sandinistas. Remember Reagan in the 80s was trying to win the Cold War. I know its easy to look back and say the border crisis is Reagan;s fault or the rise of terror in the post Cold war is too because Reagan helped them against the USSR. but I think that is too simplistic. Had Reagan not helped the rebels in Afghanistan the war ends far sooner. the war dragging on was a major factor in the USSR bankruptcy by 19991. While Reagan CIA trained the rebels against the USSR, after that war was over they did not just take their guns and go home. they in turn consolidated their victory and then got funding and training from Syria, Iran and other ME nations. So to blame Reagan for 9/11 is a far stretch esp since no one blames FDR for losses by US from Chinese Soldiers in the Korean war in the 1950s. In world politics todays friends sometimes becomes tomorrow’s enemies. Iran before and after 1979 is another prime example.
        As for the Iran/Iraq war Oliver North fell on the sword just like Desk jockeys are falling on the sword for him. I hope in 25+ years that people will be as critical of Obama scandals as you and the left are for Reagan’ contra scandal. But at 45 I hope at 70 to be around still by then.
        Modernizing the military with weapons designed in the 70s. Uh he entered the WH in 1981, the designs of the late 70s was the best we had at the time. I know looking back in 2014 those new toys are now aging and obsolete like Disco, but in 1981 it was the best at the time. Also keep in mind that many of the weapons systems that came out in the 80s that starred in the Gulf War in 91 were Reagan era upgrades. the F-117 Stealth plane. , the Patriot missile batteries. Tomahawk cruise missiles. Also keep in mind that the Israel’s Iron Dome Missile defense system got its birth from Reagan’s Star Wars defense plans that people criticized back then that are saving lives now. the B-2 bomber and other stealth planes were born from Reagan era defense spending. So not only did Reagan era spending help Push the USSR to bankruptcy as they tried to match the US but the weapons that came out of the 80s were amazing compared to their predecessors of the 50s-60s that fought the VN war.

      • Nemisis

        There is so much in this discussion…
        I will just address Reagan updating the Military.
        The jab you missed was “Newer is not always better but it usually more expensive.”
        This was warned about by Ike.

        The Stealth project that eventually became the f-117 was originated in 1978 and the result of efforts began in the early 60’s.

        The assumption that Reagan did it is again based on he was there during the 80’s.

        The Abrams mbt began it’s development in the early ‘70’s.(If you go back to a design in the mid 60’s you can find what eventually became the Abrams in late ‘71 early’72 and entered service Prior to Reagan in 1980. Again not a Reagan thing. As efforts were underway already. He just carried them through.

        The Patriot missile system was developed prior to1975 when it successfully shot down a drone at white sands. So if anything it’s a Ford Product. Fun fact: It was renamed to Patriot in 1976.
        Probably because of the Bicentennial.
        Tomahawk Cruise Missile…introduced in the 1970’s by McDonnell Douglas…SUHWEET.
        Reagan’s accomplishment on this is he did not cancel the orders.

        B-2~ Development originally started under the “Advanced Technology Bomber” (ATB) project during the Carter administration.

        Stealth Tech for aircraft was first truly successful in the early to mid ’70’s as a result of work for the ATB project. Stealth tech can be traced back to ww1.

        I myself have fond memories of applying many layers of stealth to my service platform.

        I will credit him with SDI which I considered absolute brilliancy on par with the deception of the Germans in WWII about where we would invade Europe.
        It’s success relied on plausibility.
        It forced Russia to the table and allowed for US to not spend as much on systems we knew would not be needed. Russia’s problem was it believed it’s own BS. Read that paper from my last reply.

        Iron Dome: Everything I can find on it suggests it is a variant of the Patriot system and is a joint development by the US and Israeli governments c2011. It does not use satellites. Therefore not the spawn of Reagan’s SDI (starwars) deception.

        To be honest I’m having trouble finding an existing system that did get it’s development start as a result of any Reagan initiative.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        are U enjoying kicking his ( brains) ass? I am enjoying watching!

      • Nemisis

        Well. I hope he is fact checking more now.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        regressives are allergic to facts and fact checking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        besides– they have FOX “news”– the most watched ‘news’ show around

      • Nemisis

        I watch Fox news…They have a lot of interesting articles…no wait that’s playboy… Oh, I know it’s the weather girl…she wears this thing that makes her look like a character out of the Mass Effect games plus, there is the humor factor.

        Anyone else notice that Palin is sighting down the dust caps for the scope? Look at the pic in this article. Yeah, she’s a nut with a gun. Not a gun nut.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I abhor the rightwing white trash regressives; yet I must confess— chowderheads such as palin and glenn beck and rush Limbaugh and michelle ” no tits& hates her life” malkin an sean Hannity are GREAT (??) americans as they indeed make a TON of MONEY ( which is the American dream) by capitalizing upon the sheer ignorance and stupidity of regressives in America. IF FOX “news” handed me a 500K job contractually for 5 yrs and said ” hate/admonish/ castigate/ excoriate” OBAMA I certainly would!!! In PRIVATE I would still know that Obama and liberals– though flawed– are getting our country progressing.
        progress: that’s what NATURE does,,,,thats what GOD (“god”) does,,,,,,,,and that’s what we as a species continues to do

      • Well Said!

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        to quote saint Reagan,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        ” ………………. there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,”
        ———– annoying a regressive republican with FACTS

      • Sandy Greer

        FOPA, 1986? Meaningless, and not major?

      • Brian

        Very simple and I spelled it out already. Depends on the results of the 2014 midterm elections. A split Congress or the Rs keeping the house and taking the Senate for total control will prevent any Obama’s gun control plans. If the Ds take total control of Congress ie keeping the Senate and retaking the House then they will go after guns. in 2009-10 they were obsessed with health care law but if they get the same power in 2015-6 then the Ds will go after guns.

      • Your logic is flawed. Gun regulation is lawful. Blanket gun confiscation is not! I see no Second Amendment violation in your litany as stated.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        ya mean,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, jes’ like the dems did when they had BOTH house and senate and presidency in 2009??? you mean JUST LIKE THAT?

      • Brian

        As I stated earlier it did not happen in 09 because the Ds were obsessed with getting Obamacare rammed down our throat and it was very bitterly contested so they did not want to risk support for Obamacare by pissing off Blue Dog Ds by going after guns. and also because it would have seriously damaged Obama’s re-election chances. But with Obama winning in 2012, he no longer has to worry about re-election and Obamacare is in the books so IF the Ds take total control of Congress this fall to rubber stamp him then of course he will go after gun control and any other thing on his agenda in his last two years, Immigration amnesty, EPA green energy or anything else that pops into his head.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I cannot/ willnot speak for our president,,,,but I suspect strongly that his agenda is to make his legacy legendary( see: FDR) and immigration reform and smoothly moving to less dependence ( already rocketing in that direction) on foreign oil ( promoting wind and solar; continuing natural gas expansion) is miles higher than the rightwing supposition of ” coming for (your) guns”– especially as HE is a constitutional lawyer and professor which knows the impossibility– and unpopularity– of that
        besides– repubs have superb weaponry to kill bills even as a minority in congress.
        Im always amazed at U regressives who GENUINELY “think” he is aimed at gun confiscation. U crybabies said the EXACT thing about Bill Clinton— that bore a ton of fruit; didn’t it?

      • Nemisis

        Did you just defeat your own argument about the ban?

      • Brian

        Nope. because gun confiscation whether now or when a person dies is still gun confiscation. We gun owners are not only fighting for 2A for today but also our future generations. So a gun confiscation even at our deaths will stop future generations from having the benefits of the 2A. you want gun owners to stop being paranoid then have all D party members sign a “contract with America” that they will end all attempts at gun control both now and permanently. Then gun owners can relax once and for all.

      • Nemisis

        Can you cite the statute about confiscation on death?
        I can’t find it.
        Unless your talking about the old saying “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand.” . That is a voluntary surrender of a weapon.

        Also the last contract with America was by the GOP and they breached their contract and failed to fulfill it’s terms. Just about the only thing the did was protect the fed gov from liability for the economic collapse of the 21st century.

    • Athiest and loving it

      From someone who lost two family members to “legal” guns. You can take all the guns and the NRA and the gun making companies who are getting rich on other people’s blood and dump them into the deepest abyss in the ocean where we can find.

      • Sorry for your loss!

      • Brian

        Sorry for your loss but hundred million law abiding citizens should not lose their rights to won guns because your lost family members.

    • alikhat

      So very, very clueless. So stunningly incapable of self-awareness. So weirdly scattershot and all over the place. This wacky little screed is just the perfect example of the complete obliviousness and logical dissonance of the ‘Murkin Gun Nut. I love it! You’re either a brilliant troll or a very sad little wingnut panda. Either way, you’re a hoot, sir. Many thanks for the laughs.

    • Nemisis

      Brian, the scope of the sanctions have been expanded and very soon unfortunately they will expand to include vodka.
      AK-47’s and any other weapon or product produced by Kalashnikov Concern is banned. However any Kalashnikov Concern product that is fully owned and already in the US is not banned. That means if you fully own , or have no debt to Kalashnikov Concern for, 100 ak-47’s complete with magazines you can sell them, hold them, make love to them or whatever is legal to do with your gun.

      Now to address why ak-47’s were on the list before vodka.
      the Kalashnikov Concern is a large single corporation with military contracts with Russia. As sanctions go, that is rather a lightweight sanction. A harder hitting sanction is vodka. That will soon be on the list, sadly, it will drive up prices of vodka already here that is wholly owned up. If money is still owed to a Russia entity for the vodka, it would then be unable to be legally sold.

      As Americans we have a duty, imo, to democracy and the spread of freedom and the defense of freedom. Even if I liked ak’s I would not own one at the moment.

  • There is a difference between responsible gun owners and “radical gun activist” and I believe that is where the line must be drawn. I’m a TEA Party republican and I will be the first to say that my party has become over run by the extreme far right!

    The radical sect does not give any thought as “to the possible consequences of irresponsibility exercising those rights” as clearly pointed out by all conservatives republican and democrat alike! This isn’t about the gun control or firearm restrictions!

    According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition of extreme is “an amount or degree that is far beyond what is normal or reasonable” and in dealing with the right vs. left ideology “either one of two opposite conditions, feelings, positions, etc., that are thought of as being far from what is normal or reasonable.”

    • Retrodude

      Um, the Tea Party is extreme right and have overtaken the Republican party.

      • No I said that the extremist have overtaken the the party. TEA party in itself is not bad! Just like any political party there are going to be those few who hijack the movement. The TEA party has been over run with the far right which is no different from the Democrat Conservative being over run by the far left.

        In the middle of this gun debate are conservative democrats and republican gun owners who are law abiding responsible citizens who are being forced to choose sides.

      • Retrodude

        LOL! The Tea Party is very extreme, and have hijacked the Republican Party. The Tea Party IS bad, dear. Our local party is nothing more than a bunch of over-zealous morons who had NO qualms with government UNTIL Obama was elected, then suddenly, they were all pissed. Chock full of racist, Christian rednecks. Don’t insult our intelligence.

      • Like I said “in the middle of this gun debate are conservative democrats and republican gun owners who are law abiding responsible citizens who are being forced to choose sides.” The party itself has been over run and twisted into something it wasn’t meant to be.

        It would be very irresponsible of me to lump all democrats into a preconceive assumption that all democrats are anti-gun and want to repeal the Second Amendment!

        That’s absurd and utters of insanity. I recognize that your “concern” about me is because I’m Republican but lets move beyond that! The issue is a political topic of legitimate debate has been hijacked by extremist from both the left and the right.

        To make it clear to you I voted for Obama. I support small Government but fall short in embracing the far right ideology. I support the Arrest of Cliven Bundy and His terrorist militia supporters.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I like and appreciate your style Donald!

      • The TEA party movement can trace its roots back to the Boston TEA party of 1773. The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform, including a significant reduction in the size and scope of the government.

        Tea Party members generally advocate a national economy operating without government oversight. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases.

        The Tea Party does not have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. This by very nature creates the possibility for extremist take over of a particular group.

        The TEA Party movement itself is a grass roots effort and each group should be independently judged from the action of the others. TEA Party isn’t the problem. The problem itself lies in the condition of the human heart or in other words humanity itself.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        cut and paste? don,,,, that’s rather “tea party ” of ya!~

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        don,,,,,,I gotta ask: where was the tea party prior to jan 2009?
        =======================================
        they were created as john birch part 2
        they are extremists. I will agree that U seem to be a concerned American who is NOT extreme; but overall the tea party is chaotic at best

      • The TEA party movement can trace its roots back to the Boston TEA party of 1773. The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform, including a significant reduction in the size and scope of the government.

        Tea Party members generally advocate a national economy operating without government oversight. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases.

        The Tea Party does not have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. This by very nature creates the possibility for extremist take over of a particular group.

        The TEA Party movement itself is a grass roots effort and each group should be independently from the action of the others. TEA Party isn’t the problem. The problem itself lies in the human heart.

      • Nemisis

        The TEA Party circa 2000’s has nothing to do with the tea party of the 1700’s. The two are so far apart on ideology that the original would be fighting the current and the current would be labeling the the former as liberal.

        Our economy has already suffered from enough lack of government oversight. Historically every time the government deregulates the economy especially in regards to the financial sector the populace suffers a very unhealthy rectal expansion.

        The tea-party is nothing more than lie of talking points.
        They use words and phrases designed to instill a feeling of wellness and good intentions, such as “grass-roots”, “tea-party”, “patriot”, and “good old fashioned values” . The result is the denigration of those words and phrases.
        The tea-party relies on the ignorance of the masses and the masses general laziness and unwillingness to say something that goes against the dogma. Even when that dogma is wrought with pure stupid as in the case of Todd Akin.

        If you want to be associated with that level idiocy that is your choice, but do not liken the founding fathers and the their works to these nuggets.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        GOOGLE tea party and see when they started; and whom started them…
        get back 2 me after ur homework

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        wrong answer— the inception is feb 2009; and loudmouth rick santelli ( CNBC commodities) is given the title (?) of starting this ” grassroots” movement by crying ( ranting) on the floor of the mercantile exchange by bitching about Obama wanting to help americans with foreclosures.
        The crap U bring up was NOT a TRUE “tea party” of any value; rather it was loosely associated with ron paul and his political stances.
        KOCH brothers resurrected the john birch society with anew name– period– by funding this nearly ALL Caucasian regressive pseudo-Christian movement.
        do NOT cry back at me,,,look it up on MULTIPLE sites as I have

      • I am a Tea Party Republican. My self and conservative democrats alike by joining the Tea Party, are taking a stand for our nation. We are upholding the grand principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Check out our 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs.

        Pay careful attention to the rantings of the far left and the far right. We conservatives are being caught in the middle.

        I posted my response along with a link to my sources however it was deleted by the MODS before your response. Taking into consideration you replied to that response indicates you are an admin and or paid shill for this site.

        I am here because I like to read your articles and I am open to learning new things. I’m not ashamed to admit when I’m wrong. That being said I will not continue in this useless exchange. We both have our own beliefs and I am fine with that…are you?

        I’m not Trolling nor have I made any inflammatory or flaming remarks. I have remain calm, courteous, and professional. Take care and God Bless.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        im neither a schill or a troll….. and the scumbag MODS do that to a lot of us–
        I like ur style; appreciate your candor. NOTE: im a liberal centrist and hate al Sharpton and jesse Jackson as much as glenn beck and michelle malkin

      • alikhat

        The Tea Party ARE extremists. They were created, financed and promoted by the Koch brothers to BE extremists. Of course, they were only really meant to be a minor distraction made up of sad old geezers who can’t spell, dress in flag costumes and have been deluded into thinking that pushing for lower taxes for the 1% and less social services will somehow help them. Instead, they’ve taken over the party and helped ensure the GOP platform consists of nothing but misogyny, racism, hatred for the poor, violent hatred for immigrants and terror of science.

        If you are unaware of this, you are either woefully uninformed or willfully deluded.

      • The TEA party movement can trace its roots back to the Boston TEA party of 1773. The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform, including a significant reduction in the size and scope of the government.

        Tea Party members generally advocate a national economy operating without government oversight. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases.

        The Tea Party does not have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. This by very nature creates the possibility for extremist take over of a particular group.

        The TEA Party movement itself is a grass roots effort and each group should be independently judged from the action of the others. TEA Party isn’t the problem. The problem itself lies in the condition of the human heart or in other words humanity itself.

      • alikhat

        Ah, you’re an idiot. Well, that’s explains everything. Newsflash: The Tea Party of today has NOTHING to do with the participants in the Boston tea party. It goes back only as far as Obama’s first election and is entirely an astroturf creation of the Kochs. It’s about as “grassroots” as the Heritage Foundation.

        Dear gawd, read something, watch a news show that ISN’T Fox. Stop humiliating yourself in public. Your ignorance is almost as stupifying as your pride in it.

      • Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however your name calling doesn’t do you any justice whatsoever! As far as me being an “idiot” I will point out that ignorance on a subject is normal for everyone.

        I have calmly defended my position from your accusations through this public platform and have prevailed. I have stated facts and defended them using a logical, cogent, and intelligent manner.

        All you have managed to prove is you have a simple minded attitude of agnostic hate! If you can not hold or are unwilling to conduct yourself in a civilized manner then do the rest of us a favor by keeping your inflammatory comments to yourself.

        I hold myself to a higher standard thus I will refrain from stooping to your level!

      • alikhat

        You haven’t prevailed in anything save proving how desperately ignorant of the facts you are. And speaking of facts, you haven’t provided any. Endlessly repeating completely falsehoods does not transform any of it into fact. I’m sure that’s difficult for you to grasp being one of the Fox Nation and all, but it’s true.

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        more cut and paste———–
        mindless

  • Ashton

    I also hear that Canadians like firearms..oh..so do the Taliban…Care to waste mine and every one Else’s time on another horrible comparison article? That’s right your constitutions protects every one including the church, LEGAL ccw/open carry individuals, oh and YOU.

  • Sandy Greer

    Seriously? Does it follow that I – who hereby exercise my Constitutional right to Free Speech with this post – must also condone/accept both Open Carry and Westboro Baptists?

    Is that the argument Clifton makes? That – because we exercise our Constitutional Rights – we are ‘one’? And does he apply the same standard to himself – when he exercises his Free Speech in writing the article?

    This article – and its premise – is an insult to anyone with even half a brain.

    • Sandy that is not the premise and you know it. He draws a correlation between fair use and abuses of the first and second amendment rights.

      “Because to these gun nuts, if it’s just about them being proud to “exercise their Constitutional rights,” without any thought as to the possible consequences of irresponsibility exercising those rights, then they have to endorse and support any disgusting form of expression that’s protected by our Constitution”

      He is simply stating that those who exercise their rights “without any thought as to the possible consequences of irresponsibility exercising those rights” are no better than those from the Westboro group who spew their hate while exercising their first Amendment Rights. He is illustrating a double standard that is prevalent among both groups.

      • Sandy Greer

        Well, now, Donald Cowan:

        Isn’t that just like a man – to tell l’il ol’ me – what I know?

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        scandy’s below retort does paint a picture of a woman scorned-
        be wary: the virago’s among us are always boiling yet tepid!

    • Pipercat

      First path down Fallacy Lane starts with a comparison!

    • Cemetery Girl

      It is very easy to fight for freedoms you find agreeable but hard to fight for a freedom which you don’t find agreeable. I don’t agree w Westboro, but I agree that they have the freedom of speech. I don’t agree w carrying around rifles to get a latte at Starbucks, but I agree w the right to do so. Gun nuts and Westboro have in common the fact that they are using their freedom to ignore common sense and decency to bully others. Because we have the right to be bullies doesn’t mean that it is right to bully, but we should be hesitant to curb freedoms just because of some extremists.

      • Sandy Greer

        I could not agree more, Cemetery Girl.

        I believe in God, but not like Westboro Baptists do.

        I’m a gun owner, but wouldn’t flaunt my weapons to make a
        political statement. Wouldn’t feel welcome where weapons are displayed, openly and casually. They do gun owners no service.

        But appalling, Clifton equates them. Because we ALL have things in common. And to label them ‘nuts’ – makes no attempt to understand why they do what they do.

        Fallacious articles which create Straw Men where none exist – feed into the hyperbolic extremism – at a time when we are being destroyed by a Partisanship which hardens its heart to the ‘other’. It’s no surprise, in an election year. But not The Right Thing, at all.

      • Cemetery Girl

        I don’t see this as painting everyone that uses their rights as a nut. In the numerous articles about gun nuts it is typically clarified that isn’t all gun owners or enthusiasts but the ones that feel that carrying rifles in to buy a burrito. Most people would agree that protesting in itself isn’t nuts, but there is a time, place, and preferred method. (Most people would agree that yelling hate filled slogans at a funeral or carrying a few large weapons into where families are having lunch really meet what most people consider rational protest.) To me, I read this as because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. I have the right to hand out condoms blown up as balloons to the kids walking home from school as a method of speaking out in favor of safe sex, but it would be wildly inappropriate. Not that I would do that, but if I did I’m sure in my mind it would be justified even though to other people I’d be just a nut. I would be another extremist ignoring social norms and the rights of others.

      • Sandy Greer

        Anybody who calls others nuts – shouldn’t be surprised when those others refuse to pay them any mind. Free Speech allows us to call each other names. But, like you say – having that right – doesn’t make it right.

        Denigrating and belittling others affords us a momentary
        satisfaction – at best.

        We don’t build bridges that way.

      • Brian

        While I don’t and none of the gun owners I know carry long guns into a burger joint to protest their rights I will say that just because someone does do so does NOT make them a bully. that is the mentality by the left trying to paint them as so. A bully is someone who directly does something in order to terrorize or intimidate someone to get their way. Jocks shaking down nerds for lunch money or publicly humiliating them by depantsing them in PE class is bullying them. a group of guys eating burgers with rifles slung over their shoulders not saying a word to other customers is not being a bully.

      • Cemetery Girl

        My husband doesn’t carry his rifle into burger joints either, neither have other gun owners that I know (that I know of), so we can agree that most gun owners wouldn’t do this. But there is a level of intimidation, at least with some bringing rifles into burger joints. Actually, isn’t that part of the supposed purpose, to scare off would-be criminals? Aside from that, what of the claims that some act in a sort of hostile manner when there’s an objection? Is an attitude of “I can bring my gun wherever I want and there’s nothing you can do about it” that far off from the jock telling the nerd to give up his seat “or else”? No one really wants to test either statement.

      • Brian

        I would say not really. If a person politely told someone asking about their rifle replied by saying that “i am sorry you are scared but my friends and I are just out for a burger and we are not bothering anyone.” In a calm voice I would not consider that being a bully. I know friends who are members of an open carry group but they do it with holstered handguns and dress nicely ie No cammo or all black clothes, no long guns, and maybe a step below a business suit or church attire. I guess Casual would be the description. No wife beater shirts either. So presentation is a big issue. In fact tonight the group is getting together to open carry in a restaurant and also having a food drive for the community food pantry while doing so.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Presentation is everything. There is a difference between a hand gun and a rifle. Openly carrying a hand gun is less noticeable; open carrying rifles is very noticeable. I don’t oppose gun ownership, I don’t oppose the carrying of guns. True, I would like to see better requirements for classes (because honestly, I know a few people that concealed carry and I am not to sure about their level of gun competency even though they’ve passed the concealed carry class, which in some states isn’t a major accomplishment.) There are some extremists out there that are casting a bad light. They aren’t concerned with how others perceive them, they have their right to carry any weapon they can legal own, carry it at all times, and if it makes anyone uncomfortable or if a business does not want guns brought into their property then damn them all.

      • Brian

        I agree that holstered handguns and dressed casually is the way to go. but in texas that’s not an option. While Texas is a CC state open carry of a handgun in Texas is illegal. And if a LE officer wanted to be a prick a Concealed handgun becomes exposed in a slight form like a shirt ripped at work and he walks into a gas station to buy a soda for the drive home he could be charged with “open carrying” according to the letter of the law because the handgun was “exposed” enough for someone to see it. So if an open carry group desires to protest their right to open carry a gun they have to use long guns. Its perfectly legal to “open carry” long guns in texas in such matter. But all this open carry passion agree or disagree is mainly just a backlash from the D agenda of gun control. which does exist. it is specifically on their party platform in 2012 presidential election to bring back the Clinton assault rifle ban and mag limits but according to the letter of the fienstine bill that failed in 2013, it banned hundreds of guns, not just an AR or AK rifles. Classic case of giving an inch and the Ds taking a mile had the bill been able to pass.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Sensible conversation about guns is needed. Currently the people that shout the loudest are the ones with the extreme opinions. If some people had their way every weapon would be destroyed. If other people had their way gun ownership would be mandatory and every weapon possible would be legal. Extremes aren’t the answer. Sensible discussion, real discussion (not screaming extremists), is needed to find the middle ground and work towards a solution to problems.

      • Brian

        I do agree in common sense ideas. No one wants bad guys getting guns. However those that do desire “mandatory” gun ownership themselves do not mean felons. And I have not heard any pro gun right activists even the most extreme say all weapons reasonable implying shoulder firing missiles capable of bringing down airliners taking off or landing or other anti tank weapons. However to prevent bad guys from getting guns you cant turn this into a police state where you have to show papers for walking across the street either. The anti gun crowd cant seem to get this through their head. Abortions were banned before 1973 and women found a way to have them done. Street drugs are illegal but smuggled, sold and used daily as well. There will always be a black market for anything banned or made illegal. the key is to enforce the laws and lock up the offenders when they are caught.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Oh, I know they don’t mean felons, although honestly I’d rather a white collar felon have a gun than some people with certain mental illness. Not all mental disorders, but very specific illnesses. Let’s be honest, is there anyone that would rather have a schizophrenic with a history of violent delusions (but no serious criminal record) have a gun then Martha Stewart? There is a middle ground somewhere. Most rational people want to find the middle ground. Most people just want to have some hand guns and/or rifles, but there are people out there that would be glad to own anti-aircraft. I mean, I’ve known people that had cannons (for re-enactments, but it sounds odd, right?) Dialogue is needed, not extremists trying to out shout each other.

      • Brian

        Funny thing you mention canons for re-enactments. My widowed mom is dating a guy who is a civil war re-enactment. he possesses two cannons. One he takes care of and stores for his re-enactment chapter because he has the facilities for it and the second was a made from scratch gift from a long time friend who has passed on. But here is the thing. they don’t fire actual military grade cannon shells. they fire gun powder charges that simulate the sounds and smoke from a “real” Civil war cannon. but they don’t send cannon shells at each other’s troops during these re-enactments. So while it “sounds” odd those cannon are practically harmless to the average guy walking down the street. As for mental illness No one wants a nutcase to have guns. But the problem is how to determine who is going to “freak out” to those who wont? If you leave the decision up to the shrink and hold them responsible if someone does it will lead them to not want to take any chances and ban all patients from owning guns because its they don’t want to take a chance of a bad apple slipping through the cracks. virtually ALL of the mass shooters since 1999 Columbine were on mind shrinking drugs like Ritalin or their types.

  • Nemisis

    I protest this comparison. Gun nuts tend to support our troops, while those ass hats wrap their objection to LBGT in “religious” hatred. Protesting the very people that enable them to protest, and it doesn’t matter if the person they are protesting is straight or not.

    I don’t advocate the random gun nut carrying a gun everywhere. Obviously the ball pit at Chucky Cheese should be off limits. However when you do not have a 2nd, you can not protect any of the other amendments including the first.
    Obviously the 2nd was designed to prevent tyrants from getting into power and shoving their views down our throats. The age of tyrants is gone right? I mean Somalia is doing fine with it’s lack of a protected constitution right. Cuz tyrants don’t exist. Can’t happen here in the states…I don’t know about that we are encroaching on the establishment of a theocracy. SCOTUS would never allow laws like that right?

    Is control a good thing? Yes, and control begins with education. Just like we have drivers education and basic education. The proper use, handling , and storage of weapons including shooting them should be taught. to kindergartners? No are you nuts? At the high school level yes.
    This will also avoid the random fear filled teacher from mistakenly calling out the swat team because the science teacher made popcorn in the microwave.

    I agree with UBC’s and tiered licensing. That is before you can own a gun of a given type you must qualify to use it. Utilize military standards if you must, but I prefer a more strict qualification coarse.
    Next realize that no gun is safe and that criminals care very little about gun laws no matter how strict they are. Also if a person is determined to commit mass murder and they don’t have a gun, they tend to use explosives.

    While your asking that gun nut why, ask if that gun nut would just go ahead and shoot that nut from Westboro and see which one is more committed.

    • Brian

      No one is against any type of gun training. Whether its hunter safety courses or gun classes for the permit to conceal carry. Or even tactical organizations teaching self defense situations including use of guns. But I am against the idea of mandatory because gun ownership is a right. not a privilege and the only condition for simply buying and possessing a gun is being a non felon. If you want to do more with your gun outside of home defense (hunting for animals or conceal carry permits for outside the home) then I don’t have a problem with people taking courses for those activities.

      • Brian gun ownership is a right, however carrying it in public off of your own private property is a privilege. If you want that privilege certain restrictions apply. Its rightly mandated by the state you must take a self defense class and prove you are capable making reasonable decisions. These classes aren’t optional they are mandatory.

        Your privilege to carry in public ends where my fourth amendment rights to be free from unlawful and excessive force begins. Deadly force is the highest form of seizure!

      • Nemisis

        DC, how does ”

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
        no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
        the persons or things to be seized ”

        apply in your argument?

        My interpretation is the 4th is aimed at the federal and state government preventing actions against the citizen. Not as your statement, in the context of our discussion, claims civilian vs civilian.

        BTW~ The 4th is violated by law enforcement agencies nationwide everyday in warrant-less seizures of property and other assets.

        Even when no crime has been committed and no charges are brought against the now victim of unconstitutional laws.

      • Nemisis the United States Supreme court took up the issue on justifiable use of deadly force in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1 – Supreme
        Court 1985. The court held that:

        “A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennesseestatute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

        It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

        Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”

        What this means is that you just cant shoot some one and claim self defense.. i.e. the right to use deadly force and that right shall not be infringed!

        A citizen must also establish that:

        “has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others”

        The supreme court further indicated that:

        “Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer [citizen] with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used”

        To sum it up a police officer authority to bear arms doesn’t come from the state it is his individual right just as it belong to you or I. Thus the restriction of the lawful use of force is universal.

        In deciding this issue the Supreme court ruled that:

        “the use of deadly force is a seizure, and subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment”

        Hence when a citizen is forced to use a firearm declaring he was acting in self defense isn’t going to cut it. Self defense is nothing more than a legal right to use deadly force that is not in dispute.

        The issue will always turn on the “reasonableness” of the force as dictated by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

        This is further indicated by reviewing the justification statutes in the numerous states. A person must establish he had sufficient probable cause that his use of force was reasonable and necessary to gain the protection of the law. To do that he must identify the justification statute and articulate his legal justification as worded by the statute.

        At a minimum a citizen must identify what violent felony he was preventing..i.e “I discharged my firearm in lawful self defense thereby preventing my own murder….etc.

        You can only use deadly force in defense of self or others if “there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used”.

        The mandatory legal training in the law of self defense is in compliance with the Fourth Amendment requirements!

        My initial response still stands in that your privilege to carry a firearm in a public place off of your own private property ends where y Fourth Amendment rights begin!

      • Nemisis

        I’ll not argue that a law enforcement officer is a citizen. Granted that is an acceptable statement. I would argue that the law and the 4th pertain to the government or authority versus the civilian as I stated prior. Civilian to civilian is not addressed by the 4th.
        As for deadly force in TN. A person may defend them-self and their family and their property if they feel they need to. They do not need to wait for someone to strike them, they do not need to wait till their home is invaded. In fact, TN is a “stand your ground” state that expanded it’s scope in 2007 to include just about everywhere conceivable.
        Your use of seizure to include the taking of life via civilian v. civilian is not a valid argument.

        After reading the case you cited, I reaffirm that the 4th is directed at Authority vs Civilian.
        This may simply be an oversight in the framing, however it is addressed in legislation pertaining to civilian vs. civilian but not within the scope of the 4th.

      • Nemisis

        My “mandatory” education about guns was not a mandate that people be forced into ownership. Just be educated in their use and especial proper handling. Although…I would not object to mandatory ownership.

  • Paper Boy

    As some of the conversation on this page focuses on The Tea Party, the conundrum is there is no counter part in the liberal left. However one time they got close to the equivalent of a Tea Party concept manifested by the Occupy Wall Street. After a while they lost all of their self-control and managed to destroy public and private property thus becoming a civil nuisance. Even the liberal media could not save them, but they tried.

    • Nemisis

      Occupy was poorly organized and pretty much failed by concept.
      Had it started sooner with more focus it may have been able to radically change something, but as many of the Occupiers soon discovered standing around yelling slogans is hard work with little or no pay out. Plus a good many scams were being run on the Occupiers by other occupiers. If these guys had been around in the 60’s the hippie movement would have been just as minor.

      • Paper Boy

        Well written. Your choice of a screen name is interesting. Is it because you want to be one? If so, I like the strategy.

      • Nemisis

        Nah, Nemisis is a screen name I’ve used since before the internet. (dial in BBS services)

      • Paper Boy

        OK

  • Nemisis

    I just notice Palin is sighting down the dust caps of the scope….Nice shot…