Killing out of fear

Mr. Dunn has now been convicted of murder over booming rap music in a gasoline station parking lot. Is Mr. Dunn a murderer? Well, legally, yes, but he is no different from other gun owners who do not have murder in their hearts but who, when frightened, kill innocent persons.

As with millions of gun owners, Mr. Dunn lives in fear. No evidence was presented suggesting that Mr. Dunn was ever robbed, threatened, or mugged, yet he carried a weapon because he was afraid of a life-threatening assault.

Just who would attack him can only be found in his imagination. Tinted windows, loud music, and coming face to face with black teenagers fit his imaginary scenario. He reacted to his fear, just as other gun owners have done in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Some years ago in Maryland, a young teenager, new to the neighborhood, was invited to a Halloween party. Wearing a costume, he knocked on the door where he thought the party was being held; he had the wrong address. A man opened the door, felt threatened, and killed him with a gun. There are millions of other gun owners out there, living in fear and ready to kill, even at someone tossing popcorn at them.

Bottom line: Those of us who are not afraid can now be shot by those who are.

Thomas Evans

68 Responses to "Killing out of fear"

  1. grunt   February 27, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Mr. Evans, what is your suggestion then? Only after being mugged, robbed and threathened one should be able ot use self defense? Many, many, many more "good" people are shot by "bad" people and many more "bad" people are shot in self defense by "good" people than "good" people shoot "good" people in error. Just one is tragic, yes, but it is far better that qualified, responseable people have the right to carry.

  2. Really?   February 27, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    How do you know, exactly, that who has

  3. Lee   February 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    Thomas, I don’t know who you are, but I LOVE YOU!


    You bring up, probably, THE most important point in our national gun debate: the receiver of information, i.e., the person with a gun, can shot the sender of information, i.e., an innocent person standing before him, simply because the receiver . . . feels threatened. Let me give a better example. (Thomas, and I’ll use you and I as an example.)

    Let’s say that you, Thomas, walk out of your house wearing a blue shirt. I see that you are wearing a blue shirt, dislike it, and immediately shout my displeasure of your blue shirt in preference of a green shirt. So JUST because almighty *I*, the receiver of information, do not like your blue shirt, you, the sender of information, i.e., the wearer of the blue shirt, must immediately turn around, walk back inside your home and change into a green one?!


    Just because somebody FEELS threatened he/she has the right to pull the trigger and injure or kill somebody? Never mind if, AFTER THE FACT, the shooter is found guilty of having committed a crime. The problem is that by then . . . it’s too late! And THIS is the whole problem — or one of them — of guns: the "relationship", so to speak, is controlled ONLY by one party, the person with the gun, while the other has absolutely NO rights, nor opportunity, to express his/her "existence, i.e., that he he/she is standing there WITHOUT any intent to cause the person carrying the gun any harm. And so the person carrying the gun does not inquire into the other person’s position . . . but simply pulls the trigger.

    And this, of course, raises THE central question: what about the rights of the person without the gun?! THIS is the central issue that the gun lobby has so successfully hoodwinked people into: that ONLY the gun owner has rights. Like heck they do! What about the victim’s rights? What about the Maryland teenager’s rights? What about them? Where are HIS rights?

    He has none. He’s dead.

    Repeal the Second Amendment once and for all!

  4. Really?   February 27, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Repeal the Second Amendment? Why? because it defies your feelings-based thought methodology and your liberal guilt identity politics? I can see you’ve simplified the issue to the point where thinking about them causes you less anxiety. Congratulations. You’ve made a messy and complicated reality — modern America — into something even Liberals could understand! Well Done!

  5. grunt   February 27, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Again, Lee- MOST of the guns used are 1) bad people using them because they think yo udo NOT have one, so they rob, rape and kill. 2) cops shooting bad guys. (good job, cops, btw) 3) "good" people defending themselves from "bad" people. IF you had your way, what means would any of us have to defend ourselves from armed people? IF guns had nver been invented….but then if a bullfrog had wings he would not bump is butt when he jumped.

    Responsible, qualified people with legal guns observing their right to carry them account for about 400,000 defensive guns uses a year where it is believed a persons life was saved. Four Hundred Thousand. Ask them if they want the person who saved them to not have a gun. (

  6. Lee   February 27, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Meet 84-year old Grandma Ethel, standing in line of a grocery store ready to pay. Eduardo, the 24-year old, 6’9", 330 lbs. professional offensive tackle is standing behind her. She looks into her purse as if to look for her wallet, but instead pulls out her little pistol — now available in feminine pink, no less — and, as the saying say, pumps Eduardo with lead . . . simply because she FELT threatened because of his physical size and presence.


    Is that the mind set we have adopted now as a nation? So the next time I come a cross a 30-year old Asian-American who looks to be in excellent condition, I should . . . shot him on account that he may be Bruce Lee reincarnated? Really? Heck, why don’t we go back 200 or so years and suspect that any and every African-American male may be a danger to us? Oh, wait a minute, we HAVE cases like that. Never mind.

    And we can directly thank George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their notion of a "preemptive war" for instilling this attitude in people’s minds! (Please do not ONLY blame the media.) Now, everybody is afraid of, well, everybody. Heck, why don’t we, as a nation, invade, well, ANY and EVERY nation because some day down the road, that nation MIGHT cause us harm. Or on a personal level, why don’t we shot, well, anybody . . . ‘cuz you know, ANYBODY may cause you harm down the road. THAT’S the prevailing "logic", folks, that has sadly been instilled in people. Fear and paranoia: that’s what people have SADLY succumbed to.

    Now, we have to fight cancer. And we have to battle obesity. Television shows, to maintain this sense of paranoia and fear, go under names such as "Storage Wars", or, "Battle of the Supercars." Even environmentally-friendly conservation shows are not immune to this "fight and battle" mentality": "Whale Wars." Now even the notion of fighting and battling something has entered our very syntax.

    And so we are afraid. And paranoid. Everybody is the next boogieman out to get ya. Fear. Paranoia. Fear. Paranoia. More fear.

    And so we are a nation who is afraid, a nation who fears the WORST in people and not the best. Communication has actually taken a backseat, and this in the Age of Communication!

    Fear, bullets, death are good; communication and trust are bad. Welcome to insanity.

    Thank you, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

  7. Draper   February 28, 2014 at 6:39 am


    Stop feeding this troll Lee- His Strawman Fallacy is tiresome and sad.

    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexualand emotional maturity"
    -Sigmund Freud

  8. grunt   February 28, 2014 at 9:40 am

    LEE – PLEASE provide the reference for Grandma Ethel — THIS does NOT happen except in your terrified brain. Also, where are the modern-day cases of whites killing innocent African-American males? WE are not afraid- YOU might be. I, Pink, Reality Checker,Draper and probably Jon Monday (all of different opinions on things) do NOT walk in FEAR….some may be armed, some not, I do not know. Why, Lee are you so afraid? Why do you see fear in everyone? You need counseling I fear (he he)

  9. Pink   February 28, 2014 at 10:01 am

    You have hit the nail on the head Draper. Thank you.

  10. DR DR   February 28, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    I fourth the motion. WE THE PEOPLE have voted. Freedom of speech, however the mental state.

    I do not have a gun, and I do not fear, not even death, because I have faith there is a better place after, I hope to enter.

  11. Pink   February 28, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    I do as well DR DR. I have read the Book and I know what my end will do. Not afraid, not worried, don’t carry a gun.

  12. Lee   March 1, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    After the Newtown shooting, America was undoubtedly enlightened by the omnipresent wisdom and infinite sensitivity of the NRA’s leadership. With some two dozen people slaughtered to death, most of who were innocent little kids no less, the NRA’s leaders would SURELY show some sensitivity to those shot — at least that’s what normal people do in instances like that — and that they would FINALLY come to their senses — if one can freely admit that the NRA’s leaders have indeed senses — and encourage some sort of gun restraint among gun owners. Wishful thinking, of course. Surely, one thought and hoped — I certainly did although I wasn’t holding my breath — that the NRA would go at least a tad bit on the defensive. Nope, quite the opposite was true. The NRA instead offered an argument that perhaps will remain a hallmark concept — not to mention a touch of, shall we say, incredible sensitivity to the loved ones of the deceased — in the . . . "Logic Hall of Fame": a "good guy" versus a "bad guy" with a gun. On the surface, this argument certainly seems like it makes perfect sense with most of us nodding in agreement like mindless sheep buying a bad used car salesman’s bull. Heck, your "average Joe" huntsman is, naturally, a good guy while a criminal breaking into your home at night with a gun is a bad guy. Right? Makes perfect sense, don’t it?


    There is no such thing as a "bad guy" or a "good guy" with a gun. ALL guys with a gun are bad.

    The Second Amendment, by its mere existence, creates bad guys with guns. It’s that simple. Our founding fathers were absolutely WRONG when it comes to the Second Amendment and did NOT think the argument through. Sure, people will use guns for DEFENSIVE purposes, but OBVIOUSLY, not to mention tragically, there will and are some who will use them for OFFENSIVE purposes such as a criminal. This means that our government, yes Uncle Sam, is a negligent accomplice EVERY time a person is shot with a gun. Absolutely! In fact, how is our government NOT a negligent accomplice in a murder by gunshot? Our government gives us the LEGAL right, no less, to own a gun. It’s that simple. Sure, Uncle Sam is NOT the one pulling the trigger, but Uncle Sam is (A) an enabler to a person possessing a gun, and thus, (B) an accomplice — and I would go as far to say as a direct accomplice (is there any other kind, actually?) — to a crime involving a gun.

    This same faulty logic is inherent in California’s 0.08% legal alcohol limit! The state, in this case the State of California, tells us that, YES, you and I are indeed allowed to operate a motorized vehicle with roughly 2 drinks in our blood system. (Yes, yes, I know that you can be cited for less. I know all that.) But the point is that like with the Second Amendment whose followers, i.e., gun owners, not only use a gun for defensive purposes but also for offensive ones, California’s law enables, or shall we say, invites a person to drive with a GREATER alcohol limit than 0.08%, which means that if such a law did not exist, the fault would SOLELY rest on the individual; as things stand now, i.e., the existence of the Second Amendment and California’s 0.08% alcohol limit, the fault lies with the individual AND the state! Our government ALLOWS us to use guns — period!

    So, whenever you hear folks telling you that they are law-abiding citizens who simply follow the Second Amendment, what they do not realize — and, more importantly, do not want YOU to realize also — is that by the mere existence of the Second Amendment, we have created a situation/society that ALLOWS for a criminal using a gun to exist. YES, no doubt that if the Second Amendment did not exist, i.e., were repealed, that you would have criminals. True! BUT, (A) you would have far fewer criminals, (B) you would have far fewer criminals using guns (with the numbers decreasing with time), and (C) a crime using a gun would SOLELY rest on the individual and not, as it stands now, with Uncle Sam.

    Folks, EVERY time a person is shot, YES, Uncle Sam is an accomplice. Absolutely! The Second Amendment enables and has created criminals TO use guns — period. It’s that simple. Oh sure, gun owners will immediately scream that even if you took all guns away, you will always have criminals who use guns. Not true! PLEASE do not fall for that lie and fear. Please! Yes, it would take time to eliminate all 300 million guns from our society — and who, once again, can you thank for this astronomical number, folks?! — but eventually they would be removed resulting in FAR, FAR fewer deaths, or none at all, by guns than the 11,000 that America suffers today.

    The Second Amendment, folks, enables a criminal using a gun to exist. So every time an apparent "good guy" with a gun tells you that there is such a differentiation of "good guy" versus "bad guy", PLEASE think of me and the fact that our law and government enable the latter, the "bad guy", to exist. There is one and ONLY one solution: to once and for all repeal the Second Amendment. Actually, it’s only a matter of time before it is so, because the more guns you have in society, the more gun deaths you have and the greater the outcry for gun reform there is –as we clearly see that gun reform is ineffective! — resulting in folks coming to the ultimate conclusion, as I have, that the ONLY real solution to all of this is the repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Time is on our side . . . although tragically THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of people will have to die for the repeal of the Second Amendment to come to fruition. Thank you, indeed, Uncle Sam.

  13. Draper   March 1, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    So sick of these hypocritical Liberals, always crying, whining, and trying to control others. These clowns believe in a society where lifestyle choices go can go unquestioned

  14. grunt   March 2, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Lee- IF guns had never been invented, then your argument might make sense, however if you outlaw guns, what some guy will say "I was going to go shoot up something with this illegal gun I have, but since it is illegal to carry it I guess I won’t"? Some people are bad, some good and some in between. Criminals have guns – not registered, not controlled. Look at the cities with the most oppressive gun laws and you will see the cities with the highest gun violence. Look at Mexico with oppressive gun laws and he high rate of automatic weapons used in crimes. You can not put the genie back in the bottle.
    As to your 0.0% DUI, how will that help, other than put people who are driving safely after one drink in jail? People break that law now- think they are going to stop because it is stricter?

    BTW, still waiting for the grandma Ethel cite and the cite for all the scared whites gunning down blacks.

  15. Bill Leach   March 3, 2014 at 8:34 am

    These arguments are weak. This is where we are with liberals today, they trash our rights, they turn disagreements into racially motivated hate crimes.

    Guns protect the innocent. Where guns are limited or illegal in such places like Mexico crime rises as the citizenry cannot protect themselves, and criminals don’t mind breaking the law.

    Before guns people killed each other with swords, spears, rocks, sticks, anything really.

    Have you read about the mass killing in China last week? China with its laws against gun ownership.

    29 people killed, 104 people severely wounded. Attacked by knife wielding terrorists.

    Eventually stopped when the police shot the terrorists.

    The Constitution isn’t optional. This isn’t a document that is no longer relevant. It is the framework for our government. It protects the freedoms that our founding fathers and subsequent generations fought and died for.

  16. Really?   March 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm


    Its a mistake to confuse the actions of willing propagandists for ignorance, while on their "fact-free crusades". What are facts and reason, when the "Progressive’s" zealotry and emotion can rouse the rabble?

    Ironically, these hypocritical liberals seem unwilling to post "Gun Free Zone" signs at their own residences as a means to keep themselves safe. Wonder why?

    Amazing how fat and happy we are with freedom and ignorant about what really makes it possible. In the interim we have to deal with these emoting useful idiots of the Left who greedily consume, regurgitate, coherce, and lie in their attempts to impose their will over the rest of us.

  17. Redneck Bill   March 4, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    It’s unfortunate Really? that you believe Americans of a political party other than yours are so inferior.

    But have you stopped to consider that perhaps the reason liberals don’t have "Gun Free Zone" signs in their yards is because they aren’t gun free zones?

    Are you a responsible gun owner Really? Are your weapons secured? You do realize that Sandy Hook occurred because the gun owner hadn’t secured her weapons, yes? And that the NRA is a lobbyist concerned with one thing, and one thing only. Total, unfettered use and purchase of any weapon by any person.

    If thinking that the NRA is on the wrong track makes me a bad American, I’m a bad American.

  18. Grunt   March 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Redneck Bill- come on, the NRA does not favor any person owning firearms, they are opposed to felons and others that should not have weapons; they are in favor of legal, law abiding, sane people having the right to a firearm.

  19. Really?   March 4, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    Overwrought rhetoric much? …"Total, unfettered use and purchase of any weapon by any person"…. "bad Americans?"

    Who mentioned the NRA? Your first instinct is to distrust free people who mean you no harm, and then you extrapolate from that distrust the necessity of restricting liberty.

    BTW Why wouldn’t you support the NRA, who may be supporting the largest gun-safety-training programs in the country? Do you recognize the Military’s training as worth anything? (By the way, while you’re denigrating me for being a trigger-happy Republican, I am not an R) I’ll mention that I was in the USMC for 27 years and worked, among other things, on many a 2 man team…if you know what I mean. I know my limitations, I know my abilities. Have you ever been in a position of making a decision to shoot or not to shoot? Some here have.

    You sound like a "concern troll" The point is, as long as we have the 2nd Amendment, others of us can choose to protect, without infringement! Self-defense (and the defense of others) is a responsibility for some of us, and a right. We have the right to maintain the means to defend ourselves. From your comments regarding "certain Americans" it seems you set your standards very low.

  20. Redneck Bill   March 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    I mentioned the NRA. It’s clear you wish only to name call and attack, but in a discussion of guns and gun rights, it follows to include the NRA. The NRA has opposed closing the gun show loophole and the ban on assault weapons, despite a majority of Americans in favor of doing so.

    If you feel the need to possess or obtain an assault weapon to defend yourself, your 27 years of USMC service were not very productive. I can do just fine in terms of self defense with what is available to me legally. I don’t need an assault rifle and I don’t need 30 round clips.

    Could you please point out to me where I said or implied you were a "trigger-happy Republican"? In rereading my post I couldn’t find that.

    Also, just what is a "concern troll"?

  21. Carla   March 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    @15 "Where guns are limited or illegal in such places like Mexico crime rises as the citizenry cannot protect themselves, and criminals don’t mind breaking the law."
    You mean like Denmark, Singapore, Japan, The Netherlands, Britain, etc., etc., ?

    Widespread, unregulated gun ownership does NOT make societies safer. Generally speaking, quite the opposite is true.

  22. Really?   March 6, 2014 at 8:27 am

    @ 20

    your 27 years of USMC service were not very productive

    -Hillarious comment from a Keyboard commando. I suggest you look up the oath all members of the military take so you may know where their priorities come from. Thanks for being today’s example.

    I don’t need an assault rifle and I don’t need 30 round clips.

    -Assault Rifle is a misnomer. Let me make it simpler for you, just say, Scary-looking Rifle? Assault Rifle is a term calculated to mislead. There’s no difference between these scary-looking (to a Progressive) rifles than any other semi-automatic rifle. We have a right to possess semi-automatic rifles – period.

    I’m not sure why you think bolt-action rifles are less dangerous than any others, and I’m going to conclude that like most gun controllers, you’re pretty ignorant on the subject.

    @ 21

    We have around 10k gun related homicides and 20k firearm suicides each year. So suicides make up 2/3rds of our gun related deaths.

    Firearm deaths:


    Here’s a link to per capita gun deaths, so they lump suicide and homicide together. Looks as soon as you can move out of your parents home, you should move to Hawaii.

    There are no "scientific" conclusions here on which to base" infringement of the bill or rights" policy. It is your illogical bias against guns Comrade, that causes you to believe otherwise.

  23. Lee   March 6, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Meet Maria, the 21-year old college student who is an ardent and passionate gun-control advocate including favoring the repeal of the Second Amendment. Carlos, her 54-year old neighbor, is a gun owner, an NRA member and a staunch pro-gun rights advocate. Carlos is having a BBQ which Maria attends and at which the two get into a debate about guns and gun control. (To me it really does not matter WHERE Maria and Carlos have this discussion although, yes, my critics, will quickly point out the minute legaleze details should, for example, their discussion take place in a public place, etc. My point is that ALL that Maria is doing is VERBALLY expressing her opinion(s) — period.) So here they are debating the entire issue of guns, gun safety, gun shootings, etc., and, naughty little girl that she is, Maria gets quite passionate, raises her voice to the point of screaming — let’s even say that “she’s lost it” — flails her arms about and even, at some point, slams the table with her hand/fist. Naughty girl, indeed. Carlos, simply sitting there and listening to Maria, feels threatened, pulls out his gun and shoots and kills Maria.

    OK, here we go again. Remember folks, ALL that Maria has done after ALL is said and done is . . . speak. That’s it. Sure, she may have whispered, or yelled, or screamed, or gotten EXTREMELY animated, or called Carlos names, or shouted hysterically, or even, yes, physically advanced towards Carlos as to appear to physically threaten him. (It’s this last part that gun owners will, conveniently no less, grill me over.) My point, again, is that after all is said and done, Maria has ONLY engaged in speaking/talking. That’s it. So that gives Carlos the right to pull out a gun and shoot and kill Maria? Really? Carlos has MANY, MANY options at his disposal OTHER THAN shooting and killing Maria. One, he can cover his ears. Two, he can shout back. Three, he can ask her to leave. Four, he can call the police. Five, he can, although, yes, this may be a bit sticky legally, use some sort of reasonable physical restraint on Maria and escort her out. Yes, yes, this option, like I said, is a bit sticky; got it. Six, if the conversation had taken place in a public place such as a bar — OK, OK, a bar is actually a privately-owned place; got it, Monday morning arm chair lawyers — Carlos, could call the police, or he could ask the establishment to have Maria removed completely out of the building, partially such as moving her away from him, or have her restrained. My WHOLE point being that Carlos has a PLETHORA of options INSTEAD of simply pulling out a gun and shooting and killing Maria!

    We, as a nation, MUST get this notion of a gun being the FIRST and, in many instances, only option of how to resolve a conflict out of our minds! We simply must! Carlos, actually, had one other option: to do nothing. Yes, that’s right. He could have just sat there, OK, OK, covered his ears if he believed the decibel level of Maria’s shouting could have damaged his hearing, and simply sat there . . . and enjoyed the show. (Maybe his ego didn’t allow him to do so.) Great, so what if Maria wants to shout at the top of her lungs and appear like a lunatic? Who cares? What is it to Carlos? Who cares?! OK, so what if Maria shouts to the point . . . of collapsing in front of Carlos and having a heart attack? (Gee, are you gun owners REALLY going to accuse me of being insensitive at this remark, YOU who believe in the concept of pulling a trigger and . . . killing? Really?) OK, OBVIOUSLY I don’t want Maria to suffer any physical harm, but if she gets worked up over gun control to the point of physical collapse, well, as callous as it may sound — and it actually does not — I don’t have physical control of her body. (Psst, actually, a gun owner pulling the trigger DOES love to exert control over others including physical control! Think about it, folks.)

    Again, all that Maria has done . . . is speak. And simply because the receiver of this communication, Carlos, feels threatened by Maria’s communication, he believes he has the right to pull the trigger and kill her? Really?! Nonsense!

    What about MARIA’S rights? What about HER rights to freely express her opinion? What about HER right to pursue her right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (Much more on that in a sec!) What about HER rights? Why does only Carlos have rights? Why? Again, sure, Carlos may be apprehended, charged and sent to jail after the fact, . . . but by then it’s too late: Maria is dead. Hello! Where are the rights of THOSE who do not have a gun? Where?!

    This is perhaps the greatest fallacy of the Second Amendment and what our founding fathers had not properly thought through: what about the victim’s, the one without the gun, right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If a person pulls the trigger and kills another, then the killer has DENIED the deceased his/her right to . . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hello! And now, PLEASE, substitute “bad guy” or “criminal” in the previous sentence and it makes perfect sense:

    If a bad guy/criminal pulls the trigger and kills another, then the bad guy/criminal has DENIED the deceased his/her right to . . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    And this leads me, once again, to my point that the Second Amendment CREATES criminals WITH guns! Hello! Yes, Bill #15, before guns, people killed each other with spears, bows & arrows, rocks, fists, etc. True! But a gun now enables, and more importantly, EMBOLDENS a criminal to commit a wrong. Hello! (You truly believe that a criminal will enter a house with a spear? Or do you not think he/she would not prefer to do so . . . with a gun?) Sure, you have or had criminals who used knives, spears, what-have-you to commit their crimes. But you and I are FAR more able to defend ourselves against those criminals and weapons than one who uses a gun. Hello!

    We have a chance against a criminal who uses a spear, arrow, etc.; we have ZERO chance against a criminal with a gun!

    And that’s the WHOLE point of a gun: it is an EXTREMELY powerful weapon which, again, empowers a criminal to commit a wrong. Now, at this point, gun owners are screaming at the top of their lungs that this is a free country which allows me to ALSO buy a gun; in fact, ALL of us can buy a gun and protect ourselves. OK, fine, let’s indulge that argument for a second.

    Let us assume that EVERY American of legal age has a gun — EVERY single one of us. (The NRA and gun manufacturers would love nothing more, of course! Ching, ching, baby.) OK, now what? Is the logic now that we all use a gun on each other during a conflict? Really? Well, guess what? We have already HAD such a society: it was called the wild, wild west some 150 years ago. And look where it got us? The answer is that we saw and learned that this paradigm DOES NOT work and, as a result, legislated laws that curbed gun use during the past 100 years. Today, we are moving back towards the days, and mindset no less, . . . of the wild, wild west. Hee haw, baby! Can’t we be smarter than that and learn from history? Hmm? Are we truly THAT stupid as to NOT want to learn from the past? Are we that stupid to repeat the mistakes we have already made? Really? Can we not learn and be smarter and more sensitive? Are we going to reinvent the wheel over and over again? Really?

    Get real, folks. We all know deep down and inside — INCLUDING gun owners, kid yourself not — that repealing the Second Amendment and eliminating ALL guns from society is the ONLY solution from future massacres to occur again. We all know that darn well; let’s knock it off with the bullroar, shall we?

    Yes, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. With guns.

    “Finally, there is one more fear in this whole discussion: the fear of those of you who, like me, believe that there should be far greater gun control AND, in fact, believe that the Second Amendment should be repealed . . . but are silent.” To those of you, I have one thing to say: shame on you, yes, shame on you. Shame on you for being silent. Shame on you for being scared. Shame on you for not speaking out. Shame on you for not standing up for what you believe. Shame on you, shame on you! Shame on you for not saying anything and being complacent individuals who only scratch their heads in disbelief not knowing what to do the NEXT time this nation suffers a mass shooting. Shame on you for being scared. Shame on you. But what are you afraid of? What? This is America, dog gone! If a gun owner has the right to speak his/her mind, then so do you and I, dog gone. Stop being afraid! Carla isn’t, and I thank you for your comment, Carla!

    Get up! Stand up! Stand up for your rights!

    The next mass murder or even individual shooting takes or will take place because YOU AND I. . . are silent . . . and allow those with guns to pull the trigger. Don’t let this happen, please! PLEASE speak up! Speak your mind! After all, all we have to fear is fear itself. (Finally, I agree with something a politician has said. Gee whiz.)

    Do not be afraid. That is what gun owners want us to be: afraid when we stand in front of them with a gun aimed at us . . . and afraid to speak up after. I am NOT afraid of either.

    PS. Bill #15, a gun owner who pulls the trigger and kills a person . . . trashes the victim’s rights. Go argue with that.

  24. Redneck Bill   March 6, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    @ 22

    I know this will blow your mind Really?, but I took the same oath. Can you explain to me how that effects the discussion at hand?

    You have nothing here. You took a part of a sentence fragment to make a different meaning than what I wrote. You call an assault weapon a scary looking rifle. You’re just irritated because there are reasoned people who see things differently than you.

  25. Really?   March 7, 2014 at 7:56 am

    RB, please. Irritate me? I’d have to care for that to happen. You, sir, are just simply mistaken and misguided.

    Those devices you call "Assault Weapons", i.e., Automatic weapons, are already kept out of mainstream commerce. It’s a silly, nonsensical petard that many on the left bring up when talking about gun regulation; and try to weave into the discussion and label legal Semi-Automatic firearms as "Assault Weapons "

    Your premise basically goes like…"Let’s see – I don’t need an AR-15, or whatever, therefore no one does. Why should anybody be allowed to have an AR-15, etc. ?" Never mind the fact that it is a semi-automatic rifle, and is legal, and these types of firearms have been legal for over 100 years. And almost NEVER used in a crime, but apparently is scary looking to you, thus must be made illegal.

    But..dare I say it????…you probably own some form of Semi-automatic firearm..Nah…perhaps a less scary looking flintlock rifle, or a single action six-shooter, perhaps a gunsmoke style lever action….No I won’t point out the self-contradiction. (cause you are indeed a tough guy & don’t need anything else) Nor point out your arrogant "reasoned people" group-think contention, that you presume the right to dictate to your fellow citizens what type of firearm they may own, as long as it is not a scaaawy looking " kind of semi auto weapon" since many handguns and rifles are semi-automatic..but shhh you’ll call them "assault weapons" for the discussion, because the sheeple won’t know the difference between a machine gun, and a semi-auto rifle.

    So there are two conclusions we can draw from those that make such statements: 1) they are ignorant of current gun laws, in which case they don’t deserve a seat at the table when talking about regulation; or 2) they’re being deliberately misleading and trying to manipulate public opinion with lies, in which case they aren’t a worthy interlocutor. You Sir, fall into both categories.

    Please do try to remove the hypocrisy and fallacies from your posts before you hit the submit button.

  26. Redneck Bill   March 7, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    You obviously care enough to respond Really?.

    Is once legal, always legal YOUR argument? You may recall cocaine was at one time legal and an ingredient in Coca Cola. It was determined to cause harm and outlawed.

    You’re the 27 year Marine veteran, do you really expect me to believe you can’t think of a legal alternative to a semi automatic rifle? And I would say most "reasoned people" would agree the use of a semi automatic rifle in a crime such as Sandy Hook is once too often.

    I’m sorry to tell you this, but you are not the arbiter of who deserves a seat at the table. And simply disagreeing with you makes me neither misguided nor misinformed.

  27. grunt   March 7, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Waying in on my take of "assualt" weapons. Assualt weapon- a semi-automatic weapon with one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features. A thumb hole or bayonet lug on my rifle does not make it any deadiler than a "regular" semi-auto weapon. In the eyes of an in-expereinced person, the "assualt" weapon may LOOK more deadly, but with a pump action .22 I can be just as deadly- I know where to aim and can shoot. with my bolt action senter fire I am more deadily than most gang-bangers and others ith semi-autos as I can engage from far away and still be effective. I beleive really? could be even more deadly than me, if he worked 2-man teams.

  28. Lee   March 7, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    Meet Jimmy, the 45-year old weekend warrior do-it-yourselfer, who’s carrying a full gasoline canister to his truck. Dave, Jimmy’s neighbor, sees Jimmy and, believing that Jimmy is about to toss the canister at Dave a la a Molotov cocktail, pulls out his gun and shoots Jimmy.

    Again, this whole point of fear. The problem with fear is that the person IN fear now has the ability — never mind if he/she has the right — to be judge, jury and executioner all rolled up into one person AND, equally important, in a single instant. THAT is the problem. The fearful person, because he/she lives in COMPLETE fear and paranoia, can now make up the tiniest and silliest reason as to why he/she felt justified in pulling the trigger. Again, sure, the gunman will most likely be apprehended and brought to justice . . . but, tragically, it is far, far too late for the person who has been shot.

    And THIS is the problem! So how to go about resolving this crisis? Well, one is for people to stop living in fear. Well, that’s a HUGE, HUGE topic. The other solution is a blatantly simple one: repeal the Second Amendment and get rid of guns. Gee, seems obvious to me.

    The problem with a fearful person, i.e., the gunman pulling the trigger, is that in his/her mind — delusional mind, I would add — ANY small bit of information that is NOT material and important to reality (gosh, I hope I make sense now) may appear and seem as UNREAL to the gunman giving him/her justification, in his/her mind, to . . . pull the trigger. So, the presence of a gasoline canister MAY NOT seem what it does to the rest of us — an innocent means to transport a fluid — but the most fearful and terrifying scenario in the fearful person’s mind. A large, athletic man MAY NOT seem what he does to the rest of us — a person simply standing there and minding his business — but an attacker a few seconds down the road. A young lady arguing her point MAY NOT seem who she is — a young woman speaking (against guns, no less!) — but somebody who may attack somebody a few seconds later. A young man standing in a Halloween costume MAY NOT seem who he is — being silly and having fun — but a burglar, murderer and (wait for it!) terrorist.

    In other words — and in plain English — the reality of a fearful person is jacked up! The problem, yet again, is that this fearful person may act on his/her insecurity/fear/what-have-you with the result of his/her behavior/actions being . . . a dead person.

    How on earth is this right? How? Why can’t we do something about it? Why SHOULDN’T we do something about it? Can we? Must we? Yes, of course:

    Repeal the Second Amendment. It’s that simple.

  29. Lee   March 7, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    OR, if you want to know what this whole concept of a fearful and paranoid person with a gun looks like — and what its end results are — look no further than . . . the little trial in South Africa that is currently taking place. Enjoy.

  30. Seriously??   March 8, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Or, if you want to take a look at what a fearful and paranoid person with or without a gun looks like…..look no further than…..Lee

  31. grunt   March 8, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    Meet Lee, so afraid of everyone, he sees violence and terror in ever human being. Lee, walking to his car from his house hears a bird peep and Lee has to go change his trousers. Lee bowing to every boy and man he meets as he acknowledges his own inferiority, hoping the man will not brother him. Lee the above story is much more believable (and probably more accurate) than any of your "fear the gun" make-up stories. Lee- "BOO!" now run away.

  32. Redneck Bill   March 9, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    So Grunt,

    Have you considered that the recent mass shootings are a problem?

    I can tell you are a decent, concerned person. Do you have any suggestions on how to prevent these occurances?

    Or is this a cost of 2nd ammendment freedoms?

    Is there any middle ground here?

  33. Really?   March 10, 2014 at 7:48 am

    Correlation showing causation is a simplistic way to approach a problem, and all too common when it comes to gun control advocacy. However, Liberals tend to ignore correlation when it doesn’t fit the narrative that helps them meet…er justify their ends.

    Lets see if I understand the problem — children are slaughtered by a deranged killer with stolen guns at a school in a posted "Gun Free Zone " in a State with some of the toughest gun regulations.
    To prevent a recurrence some are proposing stiffer gun control laws.

    OK i got it. Maybe next we should make Banks gun free zones.

    Oh that’s right, our money is more precious than our children. For now there is one answer and that is experienced armed security guards protecting our children.

    Mental health is a tough one.

    We need to actually start dealing with the problem of the violent mentally ill attacking the innocent, which would require a re-examination of how our society deals with the mentally ill, the notion of "gun free zones", and the belief that armed citizens (and school staff) is more of a benefit, then some percieved threat, no offense to Lee’s paranoia.

    Try this: "Connecticut Mental Health Bill Defeated Months Before Deadly School Shooting" The ACLU said the bill would

  34. Lee   March 10, 2014 at 8:41 am

    @ Really? #33

    It cannot be overstated: the common denominator is a gun.

    Your pathetic attempt at philosophizing by throwing lofty ideas and words around such as correlation and causation shows just how ignorant you are.

    ALL shooters are "good guys" before they pull the trigger! James Holmes was a "good guy" . . . until he pulled the trigger. Adam Lanza was a "good guy" . . . until he pulled the trigger. The Maryland neighbor was a "good guy" . . . until he pulled the trigger. Michael Gunn was a "good guy" . . . until he pulled the trigger. George Zimmerman was a "good guy" . . . until he pulled the trigger. (And some people STILL consider him as such. Pathetic.) Etc.

    Gun owners and modern-day Yosemite Sams, you can fool us ALL you want with your seemingly-brilliant arguments, "logic", "data", "facts" and ALL the lies that you perpetuate on a daily basis.

    But you can only fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

    Your time is up, gun owners. Enough. Zero. Nada. Zilch. No more. No more lies. No more excuses. No more fabrications. No more. WE, THE PEOPLE have had enough of your zealous thirst for slaughter, guts and gore at our expense. WE, THE PEOPLE have had enough of you taking away our rights. WE, THE PEOPLE will no longer be victims while you enjoy your freedoms and rights.

    No more. No more. Enough is enough.

  35. grunt   March 10, 2014 at 10:22 am

    Redneck Bill – yes, mass shooting are a problem, gun free zones however just stop honest people from having a gun there, do not stop shooters. IF guns had not been invented,or if all guns could be destoryed, there would be no more gun killings, also no more guns used in self defense. Unfortunatly, the best way to stop a shooter is with anoter gun. Saying do not bring you gun here just doesn’t work when someone is planning on shooting other people. Really answeres the question on this pretty good.

    Lee- NO, the people you mention are NOT good guys "before they pulled the trigger" no gun has made a human shoot it. If you have any thing intelligent to post, I look forward ot reading it, else you are now in my Caral zone "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".

  36. Draper   March 10, 2014 at 11:57 am

    I find myself at a loss for words with which to describe the weapons-grade (pun intended) level of ironic ignorance present in Lee’s comments.

    Any restriction on the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment which infringes on the law-abiding, in a way that affects our fundamental rights, without having any effect on the people we should actually be worried about – the deranged, let me say this unequivocally. I AND Millions of your fellow Americans will NEVER tolerate a situation in which our rights are circumscribed, through no fault of our own, by society’s lowest common denominator.

    Obamadrama ding dongs.

  37. Real men don't pack guns   March 11, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Small endowed men trying to compensate by buying pistols. These guys problems aren’t about a need for self defense.

  38. Really?   March 11, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    @ #37, I’m going to assume your comment is based on personal experience, so sorry for your loss. I can hope, and I suspect I’m not alone here, is that you know at least not to pick up a firearm. One should know their limitations….

  39. grunt   March 11, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    @#37 – LOL – You might be right – but only when talking about the "macho" gangbangers, those that fount their weapons. For those of us like Really and me, and others, we know we are men – manly men – who can, and have, used firearms to protect the weak. Don’t be ashamed of your girl-iness; if you are afraid of firearms do as Really says, back away and it won’t hurt you. LOL

  40. Redneck Bill   March 11, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    @ #38,

    Come on now, you’re not hiding with you’re spotter anymore. Don’t just react. Read and engage your brain.

    #37’s name is, "Real men don’t pack guns." He goes on to say small endowed men try to compensate by buying pistols. If you understand English, you can see #37 is not in favor of guns, and he’s referring to psychiatrists explanation of compensation. Or are psychiatrists people with whom you disagree, and therefore libtards? Or some other derogatory name.

    You need to drink more beer, or find a hobby or somehow disable your hostility. Your incessant rancor harms no one but you.

  41. Really?   March 12, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    RB, I understood fully what he is saying. What YOU do not understand Genius, is what I am IMPLYING in my response. It is worded carefully do to our forum environment, and the graciousness of our moderaters. You both seem to be fascinated with endowed people-perhaps some projection going on here from the both of you? Try the chicken, tip your server.

  42. Real men don't pack guns   March 12, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    What you don’t understand is that I’m female. So please reholster your macho mine is bigger than yours attitudes. Your guns don’t impress us at all. Just cause you have a gun doesn’t mean your more of a man or less of a coward. Little boyz, time to grow up!!!!

  43. Redneck Bill   March 12, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Wow Really,

    I guess you didn’t understand what HE was saying after all. That just opens the door to the liklihood you don’t know what you’re talking about in a host of other areas. I’ll even give you another one of your wrong assumptions–I’m no genius. I just worked harder than the other guy.

    You know that playground approach of yours doesn’t work very well in the adult world. The name calling and the sexual innuendo. I have tremendous respect for the Marine Corps, but I have to say they failed you if indeed they had you for 27 years.

  44. Seriously??   March 12, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Ever been to a firing range "real men don’t" ? You would be amazed at the number of pistol packin mama’s that are there practicing their aim. Many of them can run circles around me when it comes to target practice. It isn’t just real men out there, there are real women also.

    In my opinion we need to enforce the gun laws that we have on the books now, rather than make a bunch more rules, that won’t be followed anyway.

  45. Lee   March 12, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    #37 & 42 Real men don’t pack guns

    I don’t know who you are, but I love you!

  46. Really?   March 13, 2014 at 8:19 am

    RB your straw man arguments are indeed a bore: Stay on point and off the personal. As far as my career, I’ll just say you

  47. grunt   March 13, 2014 at 9:04 am

    Okay- so let me get this right – the times I do not have a firearm I am a "real man" but then when I do have one I am not? IF you people throwing these unfounded insults about would think for a few seconds, you would realize that a "man" is what he IS, not the car, gun or job. Penis size has nothing to do with "man-hood"; it is how you act – are you a responsible father, husband, citizen? HOWEVER, I believe that a "real man" stands up for himself, his family and those weaker than him. In some cases that may require the presence of a firearm. Those that are uncomfortable with one should not be "shamed" into carrying one; but those that are comfortable and capable of using one should not demonized for having the ability to use one.

  48. Redneck Bill   March 13, 2014 at 10:22 am

    Good lord man, you really are bipolar Really. You bring up your past as though that makes you somehow special, and then determine that is off point. Try to think man. Your brain is the best weapon you possess. Use it.

    You never asked what type of weapon(s) I own. I guess you were so busy chastising me for what you consider the inappropriate use of the term "assault weapon" you never got around to asking. There is no benefit to me in announcing what type or even whether I have any weapons at all. But I will say the person who intends me or my family harm will discover the answer. As I have noted before, the laws of this state permit a person adequate self defense.

    I’ve tried to discuss solutions to gun violence, but you seem to have some type of involuntary reaction every time I do that takes you off topic and on the attack. All the items you mention–"Put lunatics in the asylum and criminals behind bars. Beef up security at schools"–are part of any discussion of gun violence. As are limits on magazine capacity, assault weapons and the gun show loophole. There are problems with each. For example, the United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world, and by a wide margin. Maybe that isn’t working so well. We certainly can do better identifying and treating people with mental illness, although in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, had the weapons been secured, this tragedy may have been prevented. And schools are being made more secure.

    What I can’t understand is why some of the other measures California has taken are so difficult for some to accept. Why there can be absolutely no compromise.

  49. Really?   March 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    "But I will say the person who intends me or my family harm will discover the answer. As I have noted before, the laws of this state permit a person adequate self defense."

    The Liberal says….ummmm "right up to the point that "we" decide what is adequate"

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Nope, no Irony here Folks…move along, nothing to see.

  50. grunt   March 13, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    Bill – the comment "absolutely no compromise" I can answer. When the conservatives compromise, the liberals see that as a new starting point to a new compromise. Example – "Don’t ask – don’t tell" was a compromise, also as soon as it was agreed the push was on for open homosexuality; that was a compromise and then marragige benifits for gay military, and now transgenedered and wanting the military to pay for it. It as if you asked me to give you a $100, I said no, I will give you $0. You wear me down and I give $10 – compromise; as soon as you have it you ask for another $100 – soon you have the $100 and are still asking for the $100 – as part of the compromise.

  51. Draper   March 13, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    This is the same reason so many liberal "programs" are not only failures, but have major side-effects as well. They just cannot look at the data on whether something is working or not. It would indeed be "heresy" to the religion of modern liberalism. We are all supposed to accept that climate change is totally man-made because of the scientific data, but they are totally unwilling to consider that gun-control only affects the sane and law-abiding based on scientific data.

  52. Redneck Bill   March 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    Alright Really, are you trying to tell me with a straight face you can’t adequately defend yourself?

    If the answer is yes, you proved MY point.

    If the answer is no, the Marine Corps failed in teaching you weapons use.


    I understand your point, but from my perspective, there is no give from either side. We can debate all day whether it was conservatives or liberals who started all this, but the fact is we have gridlock. In my opinion, that helps no one.

  53. GBP   March 13, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Couldn’t agree more, compromise is not an option. Read the constitution, get out of our lives Libs, you want to be a subject, go ahead. It’s about Freedom, not Freedumb.

  54. Ray (the real one)   March 13, 2014 at 9:29 pm

    Eliminate gun violence? Remove all guns from minorities. Seems they are the ones killing each other.

    Anyone listen to police scanners?

  55. grunt   March 14, 2014 at 9:01 am

    Redneck Bill – we AGREE – the political parties are now taking action to help the party – not the nation; no need to vote – if the Republicans bring it up the Dems say NO, (and vice versus). Prime example is the debate over delaying Obamacare- once it was killed; the POTUS began his own delay. Need a new party similar to the Tea Party on the left side (else we end with one Liberal and two conservative – thus strengthening the left) ; need term limits at federal level, need spending laws – if you are NOT in that district you can NOT contribute. I would also favor "skin in the game" – if you are drawing state (Fed or local) assistance only – not paying taxes, (excluding things like disability – i mean welfare those things) you do not vote. We are a nation divided by our elected officials – you and I may agree on many things, disagree on many – but were we politicians we could NEVER publicly agree with each other.

  56. BonsallGayGuy   March 14, 2014 at 9:39 am

    Regarding comment #50. I understand why DADT was passed. I also recognize that it was an unfair and flawed policy whose time had come and gone. Therefore I’m glad that the national dialogue continued around this issue resulting in DADT’s ultimate repeal. It’s a good thing that young gay men and women can now openly and proudly serve in the defense of our country. It’s also good that their spouses now receive the same benefits that others already do. Where is it ever written that things must never be subject to further discussion?

  57. Ryan   March 14, 2014 at 9:46 am

    Rather than promoting guns among our youth, we need to continue instilling utter fear of weapons into our children. Once we have a society where even the mention of the word gun will bring a person to the ground quivering in anguish and morbid terror, all citizens will know that they are safe. After all, history has shown that the safest societies are those where only the government has firepower. Plus, we will not be so quick to engage in wars if we have soldiers who are so terrified of guns that they adopt the fetal position and weep uncontrollably whenever a gun is nearby.

    By ensuring that our citizenry completely eschews weapons of any kind, we will set an example for other societies to follow. Those who thirst for the destruction of Western culture and the American way of life will quickly see the folly of their ways when their aggressive attacking force is met by people who fall to their knees and shake in terror at the mere sight of a g-u-n. The shame such attackers will feel will certainly make them feel bad enough to toss their weapons aside, and at that point we will all live as brothers and sisters tilling the soil for the betterment of the world-wide collective.

    [sarcasm off]

  58. Redneck Bill   March 14, 2014 at 10:03 pm


    There exists this unbelievable "us" vs. "them" mentality. I know you and I have points of disagreement. And that is not just good, it’s healthy. Disagreement helps us focus and refine our thinking. But we are both Christians, both fathers, and both Americans. In my view, there is more that we have in common than in opposition.

    To quote our buddy Lee, "we the people" have been hosed by our government. He probably seeks vastly different outcomes, but I think most of us just want to see democracy play out. And that requires the even playing field that we no longer have.

  59. grunt   March 15, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    Redneck Bill – I ENJOY that you and I do not walk in lock step; as you say a healthy, intelligent and respectful discourse is important. Your comments always make me think, for that I think you.

  60. Ellie   March 16, 2014 at 3:34 am

    Why is it the peeps who hate on mexicans and gays always love guns so much.

  61. VA   March 16, 2014 at 9:15 am

    O.K. i’ll take a shot…

    “Assault weapons” are defined as “whatever politicians say they are.” The guns that are banned and the ones that aren’t are functionally identical. They’re all semi-automatics.

    Semi-automatics shoot one bullet per trigger pull — that’s the definition. Any handgun manufactured since the Civil War is a “semi-automatic.” The most basic self-defense revolver for women is a “semi-automatic.”

    An example of a gun that is not a semi-automatic is a musket. (Also those guns where a “BANG!” flag pops out when the clown pulls the trigger.)

    An automatic firearm — what militaries and drug cartels have — continuously fires when the trigger is pulled. They have been subject to a near-total federal ban in this country since the 1930s, so they’re irrelevant to the discussion.

    The only differences in the semi-automatics the Democrats want to ban and the ones they don’t are purely cosmetic details, such as bayonet mounts or pistol grips.

    When is the last time anyone was killed with a bayonet in this country? Bayonets were barely used even during the Civil War. Obama mocked the idea of bayonets during one of his debates with Romney. Now he’s terrified of them!

    Semi-automatics with bayonets are some of the guns Democrats call “assault weapons.” It would be like defining 12-inch hunting knives with camouflage-colored handles — but not those with black handles — as “assault knives.” Assault weapons are the semi-automatics that look scary to soccer moms.

    An example of the intentional obfuscation about semi-automatics (or “guns”) is the “Violence Policy Center” webpage, which states: “Semiautomatic assault weapons are civilian versions of automatic military assault rifles (like the AK-47 and the M-16) and automatic military assault pistols (like the UZI).”

    This would be like saying: “Little girls’ pink bedrooms are civilian versions of military prisons (like Guantanamo) and terrorist rendition prisons (like CIA Black Sites).”

    Yes, exactly alike, except everything that

  62. grunt   March 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Ellie, where, what comment anywhere do you see any mention of anyone supporting the 2nd amendment hating anyone? Like Carla, if there is a point of view you disagree with you throw out the race card or the gay card. No one on here – except you and Lee have mentioned ethnicity.

  63. Ellie   March 16, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Like somebody already said. Dudes with small parts and lotta hate gots BIG guns to cap peeps. Just follows. All the little haters gotta have there guns. Who you wanna shoot dude. Who you hate. Bet I know.

  64. Terry Leather   March 17, 2014 at 7:15 am

    Comrades, how can you not agree with the skilled Author Evans and Lee? Since actions are not correlated with consequences then anything is possible.

    Citizens carrying firearms for self-defense indicates intention to kill, just as owning first aid kit indicates intention to impersonate State trained physician, Dah? Do you not see the genius of this Progressive way?

    It is Foolish anti-party thought crime to believe State Authority actually being restricted to delegated powers. I sincerely Hope you will Change

  65. grunt   March 17, 2014 at 10:33 am

    Ellie- no idea what you are trying to say; I have noticed, though, that those who scream "hate" and racism are usually the worst haters and racist. I have no intention of using my firearms except in self-defense – when that time comes it matters not who, what color, what ethnicity, sexual leaning. In fact, (stereotyping) I suspect that more straights are shot in self-defense than gays. I do not believe that a gay has ever given me a hard time, threatened me, or tried to rob me.

  66. Seriously??   March 17, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Ellie has no grasp at all on language skills. Her comments do not appear to have any connection at all to the discussion.

  67. Really?   March 17, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    Wonder what Ellie

  68. Ray (the real one)   April 2, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    Ellie @ #60



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.