As today’s Macon Telegraph is reporting: “Describing the stark descent into heavy gun regulation that they say Barack Obama’s presidential administration will seek, National Rifle Association officials came to town Wednesday and backed U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss as a last line of defense for freedom and the Second Amendment.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre headlined the rally at the Georgia National Fairgrounds and Agricenter, and speakers didn’t pull any punches as they derided Obama’s repeated promises to protect gun rights as mere electioneering. A crowd of nearly 100 attendees — many of them wearing “I’m a bitter gun owner and I vote” stickers — lapped it up.
“(This election is) the difference between freedom in America and not,” state Sen. Ross Tolleson, R-Perry, said in his introduction.
Chambliss stands between freedom and “the far, far left” that wants to change “the fundamental beliefs in America,” Tolleson said.”
{ 52 comments }
“I’m a bitter gun owner…”
…who needs a gun on my hip, ’cause the one I was born with doesn’t work. Gun nuts = sublimating wimps afraid of their shadows.
Give me a break, boyreporter.
If you are robbed you can use your penis, I’ll use a gun.
I see the makings of a Marvel comic strip here. I’m not sure about the hero, but the idea of a crime-fighting sidekick armed only with his penis has yet to be fully explored.
“but the idea of a crime-fighting sidekick armed only with his penis has yet to be fully explored.”
I thought that was what Robin was for?
I stand corrected.
Classic Republican campaign theme – scare the hell out of voters. There is a group of strange other people who aren’t like you and me, and they want to ruin our country. Nice.
I’m a Democrat, and I voted for Martin. So I guess I’m against freedom in America and the fundamental beliefs of the country?
We’ll see how much longer that dog will hunt in Georgia. But it ain’t working nationally.
umustbewhatever:
See what I mean? You’re scared. How many people are actually afraid on a daily baisis that they’re going to be robbed? And how many of those people expect to be able to get to their “equalizer” in time if the guy sneaks up on you (that’s what robbers do, I’m told)? And if it came to pass that everyone was armed, why would a predator take a chance on a shoot-out? He’d just blow your head off before taking your wallet — and your gun. Guns aren’t the answer; they’re the problem.
Shut up with the guns, both of you!
Like abortion, they ain’t going anywhere. Congratulations, you have been divided by the Dividers ™
Fools! Quit being tooled!
Guns aren’t the problem BR.
YOU are.
twit.
Chambliss will win this one thank goodness. My only hope is that he gets some little clue at the fact that he was forced into a run off because of his asshatery as a RINO.
How many people are actually afraid on a daily baisis that they’re going to be robbed?
Yeah, well, we also have our armed forces but not because we think we are going to be invaded every day.
Tinkerhell:
[RUDE WORD REMOVED]
Rogue: Oh, really? What else do you think they’re for?
So if Saxby is pro-gun, why is he he bringing in Rudy to help him out?
Boy Wonder -
I’m not scared, I’m prepared.
Guns aren’t the problem, criminals are. If are system didn’t let thugs off so easy then maybe we’d be safer. But with the way things are I’ll stay prepared and you keep that thing in your pants.
Unless you’re a chick, stop thinking about my thing.
I am a chick.
Well this is taking a strange twist
Are any of you guys old enough to remember President Reagan’s Press Secretary James Brady?
http://www.bradycampaign.org
As I recall Brady was SHOT BY A PERSON…Vic, do you ever hold people responsible for their actions?
umustbewhatever: the rude word taken out is spelled tee-dubya-ay-tee. fyi
Bill: remember, guns don’t kill people, bullets do.
Boy
You wrote that word to Tinkerhell. Who uses that word anymore?
http://www.bradycampaign.org
New Post-Election Poll Shows Strong Voter
Support for Gun Laws
2008 ELECTION POLLING –
BY THE NUMBERS
83% A majority of voters surveyed favor Brady criminal background checks.
67% A majority of voters indicated that reasonable gun laws should be adopted in the first year of the next Administration.
According to a National Post-Election Omnibus Survey, support for sensible gun laws is strong, not only among those who voted for Obama, but also among McCain voters.
The poll, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland, found that 3 in 4 (76%) voters favor reasonable gun regulations in general, with 4 in 5 (83%) who favor Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales, including 84% of McCain voters and gun owners. The results also highlight that the NRA had little sway over voters.
The findings indicate that sensible gun legislation is a unique opportunity for the Obama Administration to build bridges to moderate voters in both parties.
We do have regulations and checks but criminals tend to steal their weapons so there is no background check. What people are concerned with is total confiscation.
A little history lesson about gun control.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
—————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
were rounded up and exterminated
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
—————————-
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
(sigh) I was going to stay out of this debate, but umustbekidding’s abuse of history was just too much.
In pretty much every example you cite, gun control laws were in place well before the time cited. Furthermore, there was no manufacturing base to churn out cheap guns, and there was no distribution base like we have, where there are more gun dealers than gas stations. So in every example you have given there was no mass ownership of guns before the repression began, and there was no way to quickly get guns afterwards. Do you really picture the Jews in Germany running out and stocking up on pistols and rifles, then huddling in their homes waiting for the Gestapo so they can have a gunfight with them?
When gun owners claim a right to protect themselves from criminals I can understand it. I don’t think it’s a strong argument, but it at least makes sense. When they claim they want to protect themselves from a repressive government I just have to roll my eyes. Such a thing was possible when the 2nd Amendment was written, but it has no relevance today. Perhaps you remember David Koresh? The only protection from a repressive government is a large middle class and a working democracy.
Umust: Sorry, get you two mixed up. Who uses that word? No-one I know; it was suggested by T’s use of twit, that’s all. Pretty lame, I admit.
Your compilation of atrocities is impressive, though suspect. We clearly need more guns to fix the gun problem.
Bill_k: You da man.
VIC – please. Instead of posting a pole from a rabid anti gun group why not link to the specs behind the poll & the wording itself & how they selected those to be polled. I got dollars to your donuts that say the pole it s a crock of boyreporter. Even if the details behind that pole aren’t as horribly skewed as I expect they are the poll itself is being spun like a top.
3 in 4 (76%) voters favor reasonable gun regulations in general
I dare you to get those 3 to agree on what “reasonable” is.
4 in 5 (83%) favor criminal background checks for all gun sales
Anyone define what a criminal background check was to consist of?
The devil is always in the details. I agree in some firearms regulations, I agree in background checks but I have no doubt that my opinion on what those should involve are 99.99% different that a member of the Brady Bunch would believe.
I’ll also counter your Brady Bunch poll with some hard facts that you can look up yourself pretty easily – what’s been going on with gun & ammo sales since Nov 5th? In my book money talks a great deal louder than that poll.
Bill_K – I agree with you, the likelihood of private gun owners defending themselves from a repressive government is pretty unlikely in 21st century America – about as unlikely as BO coming around to each house to collect all the guns after passing a complete anti-gun bill. But the point of the list is simply to make it clear that no guns were in the hands of the people in those cases. Would it have changed things if peoples guns hadn’t been taken away? You can’t answer that any more than I can. I’ll also say that neither you nor I can say what could happen 20 – 50 years from now if BO was able to prior all of our guns from our hands in the next 4 years.
I have my guns because 1) I know that no one else can protect my family and myself if the time ever comes that we need protecting from a criminal(s) 2) I believe in the original wording & intent of the Second Amendment 3) I enjoy the challenge of poking tiny holes in paper and making steel plates ring and watching clay discs explode in mid-air & 4) the zombies are coming one day and those of us with guns will be the only ones left. (well us & BR, the zombs will only be after those folks with brains so…)
pole = poll above. Needed another cup of coffee first… :/
BillK,
You said this: When gun owners claim a right to protect themselves from criminals I can understand it. I don’t think it’s a strong argument, but it at least makes sense.
Why do you not think it’s a “strong” argument?
Tinker: You sound like a really fun person. Now go look under your bed, lock your door and hunker down in a fetal position, ’cause dangers lurk everywhere. Have you considered a full-body turtle-like covering? Or living in a tank concealed inside a concrete bunker?
I don’t know why I bother because you aren’t going to get it but…
BR do you have car insurance? health insurance? wear a seatbelt? every carry an umbrella when it’s not already raining? Go to the dr or dentist when you aren’t sick or have a tooth ache? Do you change the oil in your car?
Do expect to get into a car accident everytime you get in your car? Do you expect to come down with the black plague & end up in the hospital for weeks incurring hundreds of thousands in bills? Do you expect to get wet just because there is a forecasted minor chance of rain?
Well carrying a firearm is no different than any of that. I don’t expect or fear being a victim of crime but it is a statistical possibility that it can happen and that being a responsible gun owner is a protection or insurance against that circumstance.
It’s only you (and your emo gun fearing brethren) that feels having or carrying a gun is some sign of inferiority or uncontrollable paranoia. Crime happens that is a fact which you can not argue. I’m a 160 lb guy with no remarkable hand to hand skill. I like being able to be on even ground with the guy or guys that are twice my size and that know how to brawl and have some crazed idea that what belongs to me should belong to them. I don’t expect to be a victim of crime but then, no one does. It happens. Every minute of every day to someone in this country somewhere. I choose to have the chance of being able to prevent it from happening to me if I should ever be so unlucky as to be the target of any crime. Why is it that you feel so strongly that your opinion should trump my right? I don’t say you have to protect yourself and I respect your right to not do so, why can’t you respect my right to do so?
Thanks for the essay, and for the gender info. I thought, “Tinker?” Must be a girl (Tinkerbell, etc.). I’ve never indicated a desire to trump your right. I just commented on the sad state of your psyche to find it necessary to carry a deadly weapon. There’s a greater chance that your weapon will be taken from you and used on you or someone else than that you will be a Clint Eastwood and win a gunfight…a gunfight whose place and time is chosen by a stranger.
Saxby has some problems with sugar, and in particular with the Imperials Sugar fire. Watch him blame the whistleblower in this video of committee testimony. This is yet another example of Saxby being in the pocket of big agribusiness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OHF-ZaodkQ
And here saxby loses his cool when asked a simple question about Imperial Sugar. He puts his hand over the camera lens and pushes the amera aside. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QSk1_e3UQ
And as I said, I don’t know why I bother. You just don’t get it. I don’t have a “need” to carry a gun. I have a need & desire to be able to protect my own a gun is the best, most effective way to do so.
As for your silly statements you should do a little research first start with some of the FBI crime stats if you need a bit of help.
1) Approximately 90% of all crimes “resolved” with a gun go like this: firearm is brandished/reveled & bad guy goes away. End of story. I no more want to shoot anyone than you would. Probably less because I’ve done quite a bit of research to know what can happen to me if I did ever have to go so far in defending myself as to have to draw my weapon.
2) The myth that you are more likely to have your firearm used against you than to be able to defend yourself with it started back around 1986 and an article published by one Dr. Arthur Kellerman. His whole paper was pretty much proved to be crap after an extended time where he refused to provide the data behind his conclusions. Every major criminologist of the time basically trashed the guy but his “your gun is 43 times more likely to kill you than someone elses” sound bite is what got stuck in everyone’s mind.
Gun control is the left-wing version of Terri Shiavo. You can think you’re righteous until the end of time, but the issue is a loser for you guys. Let it go, and try to get something accomplished with the issues where you DO have momentum… quickly, before billion-dollar bailouts for every industry under the sun dries up all of Obama’s “honeymoon” capital.
This one’s for boyreporter 11.20.08 at 11:14 am, who says,
“I’m a bitter gun owner…”
…who needs a gun on my hip, ’cause the one I was born with doesn’t work. Gun nuts = sublimating wimps afraid of their shadows.”
Gun nuts, you say? You’re a “nut” and seem to have the typical liberal mentality. I hope some day some “nut” breaks into your house, rapes your wife in front of you, that you wish to God you had a gun to stop it and can’t do a damned thing about it! What will you do, plead for ‘em to stop what they’re doing and plead with them to spare your lives?
You, just like all other anti-gun liberals, are a real “piece of work”!
+ 2 points for Steve Perkins.
“Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.”
I JUST RETURNED FROM THE GUN SHOW. It was packed. I have never seen it so crowded. The Fair Tax Rally looked the same way last weekend.
I guess people want to keep their money and their guns!
Are you sure the fair tax rally wasn’t riding on the shoulders of something else? A political candidate, or maybe a rock and roll band?
Will somebody please take boyreporter to the gun range? I find that women grow to like and appreciate a decent sidearm when they’ve been “schooled” a little with fist fulla whoop ass. Plus, he’s outnumbered here by conservatives. The poor kid needs some type of equalizer.
Steve: You are exactly right. But I don’t opine for policy reasons, as I don’t expect deeply rooted psychological needs to be solved by logic and sunlight. I do it for fun. Umust and Thomas prove my point with every posting: they’re afraid, suspicious and — paradoxically — aggressive. Umust hangs out at gun shows, Thomas fantasizes about rape and murder. Good company for each other. Oh, and Game Fan? Knows little about gals, I think.
Game fan – I don’t think BR likes girls.
Boy – I am not affraid, just prepared. Just as I am when I ride my Harley. I never plan to get into a wreck but I wear a helment, boots and protective clothing just in case. I also don’t plan on some idiot pulling out in front of me so I watch to see what every car is doing so I can prevent an accident. Being prepared is a useful tool.
And I don’t “hang out” at gun shows – I go to buy guns and ammo.
Gals? Nope. I sure don’t “pal around” with women or call them “gals”. But I do have sex with them.
My biggest problem is when they fall “head over heels”. (pun intended)
Jeez
If it weren’t for boyreporter we wouldn’t have to keep mixing the gun issue with the sex issue. Sorry about that.
Wow. Boys, Girlz, guns!
Not possible to resist tyranny in the 2oth century. Interesting thought, and really wrong too.
Do the math. The number of government employees, at every level, authorized to carry a weapon: under ten million, being conservative. I haven’t reasearched the numbers in a while, so I am taking a big guess here. Includes federal, state and and local.
Number of American (legal) gun owners: somewhere north of 70 million. Again, I consider that to be conservative.
Eliminate from the numbers of gun owners those too apathetic to ‘do something’; eliminate from the government side those good people who would not take up arms against honest citizens. Armed citizens vast outnumber government agents bent on repression.
Of course, if we accept that armed resistance to tryanny is futile in this modern time, then we ought to go ahead and turn the guns in, right?
Just damn.
No, you don’t need to mix up the gun issue with the sex issue. See, there is no sex issue with you guys — and “gals” who claim to be “gals” here — because it’s all guns. That’s your problem. And, sadly, your solution.
Stop thinking about my you know what.
BR – you are a strange man. (if you are really a man)
I am a woman. I just think more like a man b/c I think people should take care of themselves and their families. A lot of women look to the government for protection and help with their children (i.e. daycare and insurance). I would look to my family and friends if I needed help and I know my husband would do everything in his power to protect us if something bad were to ever occur.
Next thing BR will want to ban is pickup trucks because, obviously, if a man drives a pick-’em-up truck, it’s because he feels inferior driving a minivan.
Umust: I can give you a list of other cliches, generalities, stereotypes and false assumptions for when you run out. I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with you. Oh, and it’s not for the reason that Newt said women shouldn’t be in foxholes with men, though his is a good argument.
Comments on this entry are closed.