This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Democratic New York State Sheriff Urges Citizens To Carry Guns In Mass Shooting Aftermath
Slowly but surely America is losing it.
In the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting, which according to the FBI is now being treated as a terrorist attack, and since ISIS is at least indirectly related makes it the biggest terrorist attack on US soil since Sept. 11, the suggestions, proposals, if not outright threats on how to respond, show just how schizophrenic US society is becoming when it comes to this most sensitive of social issues: gun violence.
Case in point, yesterday afternoon, a sheriff from New York State's Ulster Country, Paul Van Blarcum, asked residents in his county to carry their legal guns in the wake of a mass shooting in California that has reignited a national conversation about gun control.

"In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO," Ulster County Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum wrote on Facebook Thursday. "I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm."
According to NBC, Van Blarcum's Facebook post, which also urged active duty and retired officers to carry guns "whenever you leave your house," had been shared more than 28,000 times by Friday afternoon. The post also drew more than 3,000 comments.
His appeal is addressed to a very small set of people: only about 10,000 people in Ulster County are licensed to carry handguns, Van Blarcum told the AP. That's about 5 percent of the more than 180,000 people. Which means if terrorism does strike in this otherwise sleepy country 100 miles north of New York City, it would the obligation of each gun-carrying citizen to protect 19 of their peers.
As could be expected, the responses ranged on both sides of the spectrum with extreme opinions prevailing: some posters thanked the sheriff, saying his message would help keep the county safe. Others said more firearms would only lead to more violence. "There were more positive comments than negative, but the negative ones are very adamant," Van Blarcum told The Associated Press.
What is most surprising is that Van Blacrum is, according to the AP, a democrat. In other words, he can't be blamed of being just another gun crazy republican, hell bent on forming his own militia.
"I'm not trying to drum up a militia of any sort," Van Blarcum said, according to NBC New York. "It's just a reminder that if you want to, you have a right to carry it. It might come in handy. It's better to have it than not have it. We're partners with the public in crime prevention."
Ironically, Blarcum's post came as many, especially fellow democrat President Barack Obama, are calling for stricter gun control measures following the recent string of high-profile shootings. "We're going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to make sure that we take some basic steps that make it harder — not impossible — but harder for individuals to get access to weapons," Obama said Thursday.
What is strange is that two ideologically similar people can have two such diametrically opposing opinions on how to deal with the threat of imported terrorism.
However, what is beyond debate and is demonstratively factual, is that as we showed earlier today, ever since Obama's election, gun sales have soared, mostly over concerns that the president, who has been very forthright with his anti-gun agenda, could make selling of weapons illegal with an unexpected executive order at any moment.
What we also showed, is that over the past 20 years, the murder rate in the US has steadily declined even as total new gun sales have risen. While correlation does not equal causation, in this particular case the case can be made that it is Van Blacrum whose response is fundamentally right.
However, where things get truly deranged, is that just 100 miles south of this update county, another democrat, this time NYC mayor Bill de Blasio is taking on gun makers directly, in a way he hopes to really make them hurt, by forcing New York pension funds to sell their shares.
According to the NYT, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio urged the city's pension funds on Friday to divest their holdings in stocks of gun makers after this week's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. This has precedent: two of the funds in the city's $155 billion pension system dropped their holdings in gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson Holding Corp and Sturm Ruger & Co Inc after the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012. This time de Blasio is targeting everyone.
Those two funds were the New York City Employees Retirement System and the New York City Teachers Retirement System. Funds for the city's police and fire departments and the city's board of education have not divested.
"I call on all government pension funds in New York City and across the country to divest immediately from funds that include assault weapon manufacturers," de Blasio said in a statement. De Blasio also appealed to private investors to dump gun stocks and funds that invest in them.
This is what happens when punitive socialism meets capital markets: "the mayor urged the city comptroller "to divest as soon as possible if no verifiable assurance is given that assault weapons will not be sold to civilians." The comptroller's office, which oversees the funds, said it was down to the mayor to present detailed plans to pension fund board members. "We look forward to receiving that proposal," said John McKay, a spokesman for the comptroller. "Gun violence is a real and constant threat to our children, families and communities."
Ironically, NY pension investments in gun makers across the three funds amounted to a paltry $2.1 million, as of Sept. 30 - in other words selling their stakes would maybe impact the stock price by 1 cent or so.
These two dramatically opposing reactions to the same "terrorist" event, which one can claim the US brought on itself with the CIA's creation of the Islamic State as a clandestine method to overthrow Syria's president al Assad, and by two people who are both democrats, shows just how ridiculous the gun control debate is set to become in the coming days.
At this point, if we had to forecast the final outcome, we would say that just as we accurately predicted the terrorist events in Paris two months earlier, so this time the "terrorist attacks" together with comprehensive 24/7 TV coverage, in the US will get worse and worse until one of two things happen, if not both: the NSA will see all of its surveillance powers reinstated legally in the coming months, while the US will see increasingly more escalating "attacks" until ultimately Obama's crackdown on gun sales and possession hits its breaking point and the president's gun confiscation mandate is finally executed. We hope we are wrong.
- 46 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -





Queue car accident for Sheriff Blarcum.
the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As for 'coming out', just like Jenner, he's still got his equipment. More than one Dem has said to carry if you're licensed, recently. Shit, even Feinstein does, the ignorant pig. Do as they do, not just as they say.
I am sorry but I cannot, and will not, trust any data set that has not been "double seasonally adjusted", therefore I cannot accept this correlation you speak of. Re-run the numbers please. /s
You are crazy not to carry anymore if you are licensed/allowed and qualified.
I’m loosing the little pocket .380 for the relatively compact 4 inch barrel .40 Glock.
The bummer is that you can’t wear a muscle shirt with it.
Remember.. “a shoot-out is better than a massacre.”
Since W left office, "mass shootings" have increased 700%! It's time to ban Obamas!
ya, that assbanana has got to go...shit we have another year of this Obomination, now I am sad again.
"Since W left office, "mass shootings" have increased 700%!"
Wish the press would ask him about that...guns laws have not gotten softer...quite the opposite...yet more "mass shootings"...why is that Mr. President?
And why are most of the murders by one ethnic group in rather small number of cities?
There so many guns around here...Unbelievable what guys own...yet I don't fear walking down the street at night...no murders, no crime amongst my gun laden neighbors...how the fuck can that be explained?
Cuz we needz moar sensible gun lawzez!
I think a good many of our domestic and foreign issues could be solved if we simply outlawed lying sacks of shit politicians and all those who pander to them....... phuk it worth a shot I reckon .....
The Truth About Gun Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
I was impressed with the speed of the Response in San Bernardino...but I'll bet the 14 dead and 21 wounded wish they'd gotten there a little faster...more proof cops are an "after the fact" force...when you need help NOW, there's no better "first responder" than that Glock in your coat. I'd rather die emptying my clip at some fucken asshole than lying on the ground covering my head hoping he doesn't shoot me; exactly how many in Paris died.
Cops are janitors with badges. They arrive just in time to mop up the grease spot, eat some chalk, and become entangled in yellow tape.
"Janitors with badges" is a tad unfair, no? See the clip of the panicked sheeple being led out of the building by an officer who was willing to take the first bullet?
They were having an active shooter drill that day ! and had them 1x/month for several previous months.
Even that close (ie right on the scene) response was relatively slow.
I will carry in NY City, what do yer think?
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/12/road-to-ww3-time-to...
Lord Bolshevik Bloomberg will not like that.
I always give the finger to that Rocky slab every day when driving under it.
One thin that apparently Mayer Wilhelm got right though was paving under that abominable slab. It's still a bit wavy gravy, but not nearly the rollercoaster it was.
Sullivan might have a problem with your plans, and the walls have eyes.
bian, now you have some big brass balls man, good on ya! Can you send me pics from jail? Just kidding of course, about the jail part that is...
You carry a 32oz Big Gulp and they'll shoot ya on sight.
OK I will open carry in NY City, what do yer think Sheriff?
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/12/road-to-ww3-time-to...
If the murder of Phillip Marshall is any guide, this sheriff will be "suicided." http://www.infowars.com/cia-killed-phillip-marshall-for-leaking-911-secr...
Why cannot men of this caliber be the ones we have an opportunity to elect to the House, the Senate, and as POTUSA ?
Damm proud of you, Sheriff Blarcum.
I would prefer him to run for sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ, since our own Sheriff Joe is 'getting up in years'. Come on down Sheriff Blarcum, the weather's fine!
Thank you, Sheriff Blarcum.
Why are you proud?
This clown apparently thinks that Constitutional Rights require a government issue permit.
Do I also need a license to voice my fucking opinion?
quick, what's an assault weapon?
my old little pot metal .22 auto Saturdy Night Special
I don't know, but their mouths are insult weapons.
Every time they say something idiotic I am insulted...or 95% of when they speak.
If he avoids balconies and nail guns, he should run against Hitlery in the Democrat's primary.
I would but ... California.
I read about there was some group of guys around here somewhere would go to their local Starbucks to exercise their open-carry rights. Just holster in open sight and go in and order coffee. I thought that was really cool. Not sure whatever happened to that, I know they were getting a ration of shit. These days I wonder if people would be a lot more tolerant of that. I kinda hope so, though I personally do not feel like I need a gun on me all the time, that might change. I ride the train, this place is multi-cultural enough to freak most people out. Wouldn't be hard for someone to think they could take out a train full of limp technology workers. If I was close enough to get my hands on them I can kill most people outright. But that's a big "if". Moving train, you don't get off. Could get ugly. Two caps from a .45 would likely fix that though.
I go by this credo:
Have cannon will travel!
The only people scared of seeing anyone with a gun are the very same ones who call 911 screaming & crying for someone to please hurry up and get over there with a gun.
Its just the damnedest thing ;-)
thanks for the laugh! that's some funny shit right there!
Exactly nmewn.
CA state passed a law making open carry of an unloaded gun (which is what the CA open carry people were doing in their protests) that went into effect in 2012 -- so that's why that group went away.
Secondary to this, Starbucks changed their policy on open carry, unfortunately, because people trying to make their point a little too loudly came in OCing ARs. Legal, yes, but hardly a great PR move and lost one of the few openly firearm-friendly national chains as a result, it would have been better to stick with handguns and just get everyone acclimated.
California is one of the most difficult states for a regular Joe citizen to obtain a CCL.
Probably only more difficult is Hawaii.
handgunlaw.us
I haven't even mentioned other CA-related restrictions, like on magazine capacity, or firearms that are not on the state-approved list.
Still, the decision is ultimately yours, no matter how many walls the bureaucrats try to throw up in your face.
I may resort to computer-bag-carry of a .45 semiauto. I know, that sounds like "concealed". But I'm going to install a USB port in the grip and have a magazine that contains a wifi repeater and use the weapon for my internet connection on the train. I'll have a loaded clip in the spare battery compartment of my laptop (it's that big). Any shit goes down I eject the wifi from the gun, load the clip, and ...
.. lose wifi connection. Snap. Okay that sucks I'll have to find a way to keep the wifi installed and still be able to load rounds and shoot sand monkies.
An interesting technical challenge. Hey that sounds like it might be a Kickstarter campaign!
They make .45s that take clips???
1000 people in that Paris theater, TWO shooters..one witness said they both stopped shooting to reload...no one charged them..holy fuck, what a bunch of pussies. Guys I know will punch you for looking at them stupidly...shoot at them...they'll tear your fucken head off if you give them the chance.
That train...French men (use the term lightly) running for their lives...ONE AMERICAN MAN sees his chance and takes it...The shooters lucky it wasn't me...I would have bashed his head with his own gun till only a wetvac could cleaned up the mess.
Yup! You hit them as hard and as fast as you can ... and then -- well look here! -- there's a weapon right on the floor! I'll be dipped. So much for not being allowed to carry, right?
All you need to be ready to do is murder someone with your bare hands. Or whatever. After that (and assuming you don't get drilled) it all just sort of works out.
I have actually done this. Fact. Didn't kill the guy there was no need to. But it taught me that yes in fact you can take someone totally by surprize. They 100% do not expect you to do that, so that's exactly what you do.
One of these clipped in your pocket: http://www.gerbergear.com/Tactical/Knives/06-FAST-Knife_31-000216
with these on your hands: http://www.supremedefense.com/finger-less-sap-gloves-steel-shot-filled-g...
Better not let me anywhere near, very dangerous and very fast, especially with boxing training.
folders for EDC are alright, but I prefer a fixed blade... plenty of neck knives etc. out there to choose from and just as easy to conceal...
I never understood why no one picked up an object or anything to throw it at their face and charge the shooters. Aiming a fire arm takes a lot of skill and concentration. It is not an instant I win button. Certainly every victim was afraid, but so is the assailant. I hope I can follow my own advice if confronted but I do know I wont just run, that puts a target on your back and gives them what they want.
You don't know anything until it happens.
Unless you trained realistically or been in such situations it is almost certain that first thing you will do is freeze
It is human nature, your brain is receiving
a ton of unfamiliar information that it is trying to process.
Then your instinct will kick in and this is the flight or fight one.
I honestly have no idea what I would do.
I would like to think that I would be smart and brave and defeat the threat and be a here.
It is entirely possible that I would shit my pants and run away like a little girl.
I always carry a Buck 4" folder in a sheath on my belt in town and around home. I would assume in France there would be no problem either. I know a few years ago in France you could be fined for NOT using a silencer. To buy a handgun was no different than buying a car. In 2000 or so the EU made the French register their guns.
I have ZERO problems with legally armed people to do so. Actually I encourage it.
We are so grateful you give us your approval and permission.
/s
Now, we're gonna have to talk about this "legality" thingy.
Say, hypothetically, that some poor soul couldn't AFFORD to fight a charge brought by the state erroneously. Even the state knew it was bullshit but for the prosecutor it's a W in his column, so he really doesn't care about justice or truth or innocence of the one charged.
So our "fellow citizen" cops out on a plea deal offered by the state.
Now he can't "legally" participate or enforce his RIGHTS.
Good outcome or bad outcome? ;-)
"some poor soul couldn't AFFORD"
Thats anyone now, the gov can freeze all your assets regardless of whether they were part of crime.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches...
"Justice" is nothing more than a high stakes poker game with your life hanging in the balance, if you can't ante up and stay in, you're fucked, you have to fold...that's really what it has become.
The State has an unlimited war chest.
Yezzz.
And in nmewn's "new world order" (lol) when the state brings it's power to bear on one individual, that individual doesn't stand alone against it with court appointed lawyers fresh out of "law school" looking for a job in the DA's office and a fat pension, he will have access to the same amount of funding (dollar for dollar) as the state puts up...itemized.
It's only "fair" ;-)
And an empty morality and ethics chest.
Or, someone pleads to a misdemeanor and the feds decide to call it a felony. No trial and no conviction but the feds threaten violence to take the right away.
According to the U.S. Constitution everyone may legally bear arms; any kind, anytime, anywhere.......
That actually depends on the meaning of the word "the"... and the meaning varied from State to State 200 years ago. Unfortunately, the idiocrisy has grown so much, that there are now very few people who even understand the various meanings of the simple word "the" in that context.
That is quite the load of horseshit.
Sooo, ummm, I guess the "unlicensed" gun owners will just have to do what exactly sheriff...beg...run...call 911?
Go fuck yourself.
Baby steps nmewn, baby steps, man you at least should give him some credit, you do have a valid point, go easy my friend, we need more of them to wake up.
Yeah, I know but I really am getting tired of coddling these "legalese" assholes.
When the shit gets in the wind and one of his guys is pinned down waiting for "backup" which is "only minutes away" I garun-damned-T-you when an "illegal gun carrier" shoots the perp in the back of the head and walks away into the shadows he's not going to put out an APB.
Got a lot of paperwork to do here first, we'll get round to it, maybe ;-)
LOL, there is only one thing we can do, keep talking to them, and maybe they just might come around, too bad it will take a lot of body bags to do it though.
They will eventually overlook it. The laws won't change they just won't apply.
Not long now.
Yes, keep talking to them. Those with morality and intelligence and willingness to question what they have been taught will eventually figure it out and come around. Those with no morality, no intelligence, or no willingness to question, which unfortunately is many these days, will forever continue to resort to state-delivered violence to get their way.
A sheriff with more mettle would announce he was not enforcing gun laws.
I disagree. There is a reason why we don't want, for example, convicted gang members carrying guns around legally. The issue is not black and white, other than that law abiding citizens should have the right to buy and carry any guns they please. But saying anyone and everyone should be allowed to carry would violate the rights of law abiding citizens not to have dangerous felons running around with legal guns.
Could place your finger on the article in question (about some RIGHT) where gun toting felons can't come anywhere near law abiding citizens?
One presumes you're going to hang your "felon" hat on deadbeat parents?
Which is not an endorsement of dickhead parents not carrying out their responsibilities but damned near everything is a felony now.
Protecting ourselves through the rule of law is the most fundamental goal of the Constitution, as reflected in the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In terms of your rant about hanging a felon hat on deadbeat parents, I have no idea what you're talking about.
"In terms of your rant about hanging a felon hat on deadbeat parents, I have no idea what you're talking about."
Many states say someone is a "felon" when they refuse or cannot meet cout ordered child support, Michigan for example.
As for as the Constitution, the BoR's makes absolutely no distinction between felons & "law abiding citizens" (they were all citizens) and as we all know, as far as Britain was concerned, it considered anyone who signed it a traitor...something much worse than a felon ;-)
I said "dangerous felons." Your response ignored that detail for a reason, which is that your mind is made up.
Let's say a radical Muzzie citizen publicly declares that he wants to kill Christians as part of a jihad. He gives a public speech about it. He later aims a loaded gun at a Christian but is arrested before he pulls the trigger. He gets out on bail. Should the Constitution protect his right to carry a gun pending resolution of the charges against him, or would it be reasonable to restrict him pending trial?
Is there a "special law" that deliniates "dangerous felons" from regular ole felons now or are you trying to create one?
See, now we are debating the merits of the limitations on gun restrictions. I totally agree there should be such a distinction between gun ownership rights of dangerous felons versus non-dangerous ones. For example, I know it is a felony to write a bad check in a certain amount. Has nothing to do with gun ownership. It is also a felony to hold up a liquor store with a gun. That guy shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Your argument seems to be that there should no limitation at all. I disagree.
I'm not your downvoter on this one.
Well, I don't know how much of a debate it is, "the two sides" will never come together on this. It doesn't matter if it's the steak knife or a gun, the RIGHT still remains. I will never acquiesce to you OR the state coming between his right to defend himself against gangbangers OR the state.
Its as simple as that.
And as far as your muslim/christian contrivance, never EVER pull a gun unless you intend to use it.
Or you will be dead before you hit the floor.
LTER, you don't have any children, do you? Cuz I find all of your law worship immaterial when it comes to the exploitation and violent incompetence inflicted by law upon myself and my family. Would you sacrifice your families safety for your principle?
Nice attempt at sleight of hand but you fail as a magician. We have not moved to debating the limits on gun restrictions. You slipped into debating the limits on bail. Agreed the guy who robbed a liquor store shouldn't be allowed to own a gun while serving his sentence. All his liberty is restricted. When the sentence is over any such restriction are not legitimate and deny the philosphical underpinnings of the "corrections system."
Actually, you are not making any arguments at all. You have only offered assertion. Your opinion should be binding and acknowledged as "common sense." You have been offered philosophical arguments designed to preserve liberty while allowing for defense of self and punishment of crime. The arguments zoom right passed you completely unnoticed.
You have reduced your argument now to the intricacies of bail. That is a touchy subject but wholly different from your preventative laws. In the case you mention you have a crime charged and a period of time where there is a judgement that the person might be guilty of that crime. Your "convicted gang members" denies the possibility of human redemption.
Hard to see how you could be more fundamentally wrong. The fundamental goal of the consitution was to secure certain benefits for the several soveriign states that could best, and perhaps only, be secured through a federation. The secondary goal was to strictly limit the powers that federal government could exdercise. It has zero to do with protecting ourselves through the rule of law.
Actually the issue IS black and white according to the Constitution. All laws conflicting with the Constitution, and the 2nd ammendment specifically in this case, are null and void according to multiple Supreme Court decisions, all of which are conveniently left out of the dialogue when considering what should be done about a certain socially inconvenient unalienable right. BTW you do not have a right to not have dangerous felons running around....
I most certainly have a right to a system of laws that includes reasonable restrictions on convicted gang members carrying firearms. The constitution does not prohibit murder expressly either. But I don't expect you'd ask me to find a provision to support the idea that you have the right not to be murdered. This is common sense stuff that you guys seem to gloss over whenever the 2nd amendment is involved. It is sad that we cannot have an intelligent debate on the subject.
A convicted gang member should be in prison. If he is not one could only presume that he either escaped or has served his time and thus paid his debt to society and should immediately have all Constitutional rights restored. I agree that we all have a right to Life, Liberty and Happiness, however I do not believe it is the responsibility or the right of the State to secure those rights. That has historically been the burden of the individual in a free society. I believe the Natural Law sufficiently addresses everything necessary to promote freedom and security in our day to day affairs without unnecessary bureaucratic interventions that are really nothing more that political maneuvers used to manipulate and control certain elements it finds offensive. As you well know, Laws do not deter criminals....
Not my junk BTW
In your world someone who is merely "convicted" by a government brings cause to strip their RIGHTS away?
Does this come from your interpretation that rights are GRANTED by the state or just acknowledged by the state?
Be very fucking careful how you answer...
////
It was my junk.
////
It's like peeling an onion back, just one layer at a time...what if the one "murdered" was a tyrant and his justice system called you a murderer and convicted you as a murderer...good murderer or bad murderer? ;-)
You are arguing bizarre examples instead of common sense. The government if properly constructed exists by and for the people. The people generally want a system of laws that protect them from dangerous people. The idea that there is something wrong with the people wanting laws that recognize limitations on human behavior that affects them is rational. The idea that there should no restrictions at all on human behavior that affects other people is irrational.
"The government if properly constructed exists by and for the people."
Really?...lol.
And if the people running it are idiots or the people who "changed" it or manipulated it are idiots as well...what is your definition of "properly constructed"?
Why...it must be something called "the rule of law!!!"...which was abandoned in favor of gimme.
Well that's tough shit ain't it?
You're really going to enjoy "the law" spying on you through the IRS/NSA to make sure you have at least a thousand rounds of .223 and a gun to fire it through in good working order.
It'll be really kewl, trust me ;-)
Maybe the problem is the verbiage.
"The people generally want a system of laws that protect them from dangerous people."
How can a law protect anyone? Though the law states it is unlawful for you to kill me what is preventing you from doing so? It irrational for me conclude personal safety from a statement of rules. Maybe the law isn't the issue you are debating but how the law is interpreted.
Also, your scenario's end would be highly unlikely. An individual drawing a loaded gun with the intent to kill would most likely do so. Unless, miraculously, there was some armed person to stop him at the precise moment of opportunity. Also, unlikely. Most private non-military trained gun owners as myself are trained in self defense, not combat. I doubt I would shoot until after he killed the Christian, identifying himself as a target. Then, as in San Berno, it's shoot to the death.
Miffed
You're a nurse. If you see a child at the ER who has a black eye and a broken arm at 11:30 pm who says he fell, and a drunken parent is nearby who is visibly angry, do you do nothing and believe that nothing should be done? Is there no role for the law to try to protect the child, even though it is not 100% certain that he was a victim of anything or will be?
Terrible example. Here you describe a situation where there is probable cause to believe that an actual crime has been committed. Elsewhere you argue for laws to restrict people because you fear a crime might be committed at some unspecified time. You have no right to have your fears bind others.
At some point, you realize that the world is not full of people as honest and integrity laden as yourself. When one of those evil fuckers hurts you or your family enough, you realize that it's up to you to protect and inflict reparations. Returning karma, if you believe in that shit, isn't passive. Eye for an eye bitchez.
You are correct the idea that "there is something wrong with the people wanting laews that recognize limitations on human behavior that affect them is rational" is true. It is also the opposite of what you intended to say. Your thinking is sloppy. Virtually any behavior can have some impact, no matter how remote, on others. This is the line of thinking the feds use to turn authority to regulate interstate commerce into authority to regulate everything. There is no rational way to limit the scope of such laws.
There is no lack of intelligence in this discussion. You cannot win arguments by unilaterally declaring your own position to be "common sense stuff."
So tell me why it's not common sense, and then we have an argument.
Ok.
The constitution is some stuff a bunch of guys wearing wigs who put their pants on one leg at a time, used the bathroom as often as we do, and drank too much booze, wrote down on a piece of paper a few hundred years ago. Get over the notion that it has divine significance.
A "right not to be murdered" is a convoluted expression of a right to property whereby a person's property includes first and foremost his own physical body. The recognition of property rights is an existential primary derived from the essential nature and requirements of survival of man (and beast) on earth. If you don't believe that, I'd be happy to delve into the philosophical underpinnings, but doubt ZH is an appropriate place.
A right to one's own property is not the same as a right to deprive others of their property citing justification that they might attack you. If you disagree, that means you don't mind and think it reasonable if I up and kill you for no reason other than I think it's remotely conceivable you might decide to attack me. Sorry, you actually have to do a crime to be guilty of it.
"The recognition of property rights is an existential primary derived from the essential nature and requirements of survival of man (and beast) on earth."
This shit apparently appeals to many here, but it is tripe. Man for most of its existence killed other men with impugnity, and beasts still do. Do you think a lion gives a fuck about the property (life) rights of his prey, or even his pride when he's hungry enough? You may think you want to live in the jungle, but I do not. Note that you have normalcy bias. You are sitting here on a Friday night posting on a financial blog talking about how you want to be a lion in the jungle.
A lion "might" attack me or my livestock so I build a fence and carry a gun. If I see him near my fence, I may kill him. Before he killed me or my livestock. Common sense. But to you I guess I am guilty of accusing the lion of a future crime.
In a civilized society, we recognize potential threats and deal with them. One way to do that is to take away guns from people who prove they are not responsible enough to have them. Or we can just trust that the lion is sight seeing.
You are sitting here on a Friday night posting on a financial blog talking about how you want to be a lion in the jungle.
Ad hominem - the refuge of the desperate.
Not responding to the substance of the post and instead picking out one sentence, and then making your own ad hominem. nevermind. I suppose we can not talk all night, starting now.
One of the fundamental concepts of western ciivilization is that mankind is above animals. Argue this all you want but you need to start in the 14th century and work backwards. No point wasting words hear with your opinions which are obviously formed out of militant ignorance.
You do not have such a right. You have a right not to be attacked, whether it is by a convicted gang member, an uncovicted gang member, or just a lone asshole. You do not understand the concept of rights. You ignorance is best illustrated by wishing toimpose your preference on others. Nor do you understand the constitution which has nothing to do with an enumeration of rights. It is a document that formed a federal government whose only powers are those explicitly granted to the federal government in the document. THe document was never intended to be a criminal code nor an enumeration of rights.
...would violate the rights of law abiding citizens not to have dangerous felons running around with legal guns.
An interesting right you posit. Does it go alongside a right to health care and a right to not be poor and a right to be safe from contact with all sharp edges?
By extension, your argument implies convicted criminals, once their debts are paid, don't really have their debts paid, and must be dis-empowered in every way, perhaps including banning them from working out to develop powerful muscles or banning them from karate lessons or banning them from owning scissors.
Or, we could let each individual fully defend himself and his property as is his legitimate right. If he commits a crime of aggression against another property owner (not a crime against the state...which is not a crime), and he delivers full restitution to that victim, then he is free to continue his life as an individual with the same property rights and freedom to defend them as anyone.
It is an interesting "law & order" proposition LTER is desperately trying to make while clinging to what he thought he once had.
I do believe he's postulating that a duly convicted felon doesn't have the same RIGHT to defend himself from another felon by any means, I do believe he wants the convicted felon to simply call the cops and protect himself & his family with a steak knife against unconvicted gangbangers busting down is door...lol.
Now, as for myself and "legalities"...I'm having a leeetle-bit-o-trouble discerning whats legal and...whats not...after the Patriot Act and ObamaCare.
Prolly jus me tho ;-)
I didn't down vote you, but you completely miss the point of my philosophy if you think I don't believe in the rule of law. My beef is with how the rule of law has been corrupted, not with the concept of it. It's the same reason I argue with people about their idea that no government at all would solve everything. It's balance. I heavily favor balance in favor of personal liberty, but there are limits.
I'm glad you are here because so many of us correctly apprehend the nature of evil, this turns into an echo chamber. We need to be reminded of the ignorant confusion that embodies the preponderance of the mainstream, as you so doggedly put forth.
"Rule of law" is violent rule by a few men who pen their opinions and tell everyone else it constitutes "law" they must obey. That you worship these men yourself is your prerogative. That you would sanction, fund, and use violence to impose the opinions of those lawmakers upon peaceful people who don't agree is a stance you will have to take responsibility for.
Your "balance" is not mine. What you do on your earned property is your business. The minute you interfere with what I do on my property, imposing upon me your conception of limits to my liberty, you become the evil. Think about that with respect to your own property and individual freedoms and if you truly want it to be otherwise. Do you really want me and my chosen "lawmakers" violently imposing our values on you? I thought not.
What you propose is that I let you -- not your "lawmakers" -- decide. Human history teaches that an absence of rule of law is violent rule by a few men who don't bother to pen their opinions and who simply tell everyone else what to do. How else do you explain history? Are you telling me that every King, Queen, Pharoah, warlord, prince, etc that violently exercised his/her will over the ages was elected or had consent of the governed? If not, why do you suggest that such a model is better than an elected government?
As I said, there is no "balance" for me anymore.
The Patriot Act was sold to us as "balanced". ObamaCare was sold to us as "balanced". As was SSI and now "climate change"...lol.
You don't need to be a weatherman now to tell which way the wind is blowing Rand, so you go ahead continuing your talk about balancing out the corruption you see all around you and giving away YOUR RIGHTS one little piece at a time trying to run out the clock on your miserable clinging life, never thinking about the next generation and all the other lives to come after you.
Not me. No compromise in this. Ever.
The difference between you and I (and people like me) is I/we don't need you, you need us, we're perfectly capable. I know that sounds harsh in your touchy-feely moonscape of unreality but it is the truth. You want to pay other people to stand on the wall for you instead of you standing there yourself.
Nmewn, you have a very high opinion of yourself. I suppose you should get a ribbon for that, but to me it's just talk. You conflate my belief that anarchy is worse than elected government, as my endorsement of our current system, even though we have debated endlessly on this subject. You have nothing to offer but false bravado, but that certainly plays well here among similar posers. So enjoy.
I really don't care what your opinion of me is, some of us have talked the talk and walked the walk and have all the scars to prove it and cherish each and every one of them.
Believe it or not there really are people on this earth who's first thought was not to "call the law" when the little girl showed up in the ER with a black eye along with her visibly drunk and angry parent in your example to Miffed.
This is what scares you the most isn't it?
The thought that if the family won't take care of what needs to be done for the sake of the little girl, some "extra legal authority will...commit a crime!" (OMG!...audible gasp!) and do it themselves not caring one wit about the consequences of "your papered-over legal authority"?
Knowing you, you should be afraid of that, you have every right to be afraid of that, just as I have every right not to give a damn about your stupid fears and your incessant promotion of Big Brother .gov always wearing a white hat, like you live inside some lame-ass Norman Rockwell painting.
That's no ones reality on the face of this earth but yours, grow up.
Nmewn,
I think you have hit the crux of this issue. I have posted this before but when we moved here, a neighbor was very friendly with us and took an interest in our 2 girls 8 and 11. Another neighbor came and told us she had a problem with him and he had an attraction to girls our age. He was not on any predator list. We told our girls to have nothing to do with him and if alone, never allow him into our home. A few weeks later I asked Mr why David was no longer visiting. He told me he gave him the talk on " the way things are". Metaphorically, when you find aphids on your beautiful roses, you don't get a judge or jury to decide their fate, you crush them between your fingernails immediately. ( my metaphor, his was more masculine and direct) David protested he was being mischaracterized and mr accepted that but said again what the consequences would be if he ever touched our daughters. We never had any trouble with him.
A few years later Eldest was home alone and David rang the doorbell. She got my gun, several magazines and barricaded herself in her bathroom. She kept watch on him through the window and after awhile he just left. She told us when we got home, she prepared herself to unload both mags if she had to. Turns out later we found out he was out of hay and just wanted to borrow some.
The key here is we have a rational approach to life and we taught our kids how to think when confronted with these types of situations. Had Eldest acted irrationally and shot David through the window she would be guilty of murder. Had David broken in and tried to attack her, the killing would be justified. When you add a third party in all this, the intended victim must always look to another for their own safety and will never mature in understanding. How is this any different from not teaching your child how to drive or sending them to school? You hamstring them and they become dependent on you for their survival.
I doubt LTER will return and answer this. I don't think he wants to debate this in truth but just taunt and make accusations. However, I believe if our society was made up people with such an ideology, our problems would diminish and those of LTER ilk would certainly get a free ride. Such is always the case.
Miffed;-)
What is legal and what is lawful are two different things.
Disarm government. I agree 110%
The announcement is ludicrous. People who have concealed carry never leave home unarmed in my experience. To me, this is grandstanding, sanctimonious politician-speak.
Miffed
Isn't this the state where a newspaper printed all the names and addresses of legal permit holders? Guess everyone should be scared there at this point...
Got your concealed carry permit right here....
Concealed carry is extremely difficult to get here. The only two people I know that have it are my horseshoer after 11 years of trying and a work associate who working late at night and was attacked when she walked to her car ( took quite a while considering). For the rest of us, we don't discuss what we do privately with those in " authority" or even with each other.
Miffed;-)
It's certainly impossible in Sacramento. I've been told to not even try. That won't stop me from increasing the value of Ruger stock tomorrow, though, to hopefully offset that BS in New York.
Sheriff Arapaio is calling for something similar. I don't worship the guy like some do but he occasionally makes some fine points. The difference is that here you are not likely to get thrown in the slammer for taking his advice.
http://www.kpho.com/story/30644963/arpaio-calls-on-250k-armed-citizens-to-stop-terrorism-and-mass-shootings
$1000 bounty on musloids. Or free trip back to country of origin.
Problem solved within 1 fiscal year. And economic stimulus to boot.
WINNING!
now that is an oxymoron, but hey, at least one DemonRat is awake, who knew? God Bless him...really!
"I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm."
We are now officially in The Twilight Zone.
It’s gonna be awesome. I hope I’m not killed right off the bat.
Of all state enforcers, sheriffs are some of the least corrupted by their roles because they are directly elected by a small group of constituents they are beholden to for everything including funding. Gestures like this show the results. Compare to the attitude of a unionized big city police chief appointed by his buddy the mayor receiving Federal grants for military equipment.
Saw me a city cop bear cat and some sort of mini cat driving around pimpin da hoes tooday.
They also have some long low armored vehicle you can stand from the middle and pick off zombies and fire tear gas from.
All probably pentagram .fedgov issue.
Worthless after 10 minutes of seriously pissed off natives.
No. I give them 5 minutes up against serious local resistance firepower.
I agree. IMO Americans will make the goat herding pederasts look like amatuer hour.
A peaceful solution would be better for all concerned, especially those employed to oppress us.
Well, it's good to know not everyone in government has decided the taxpayer is the terrorist. Almost amazing.
I trust no man on this planet.
Especially not a government, man.
You drunk?
Sheriff will be required to return his Democratic party membership card and CP booklet. :D
"What we also showed, is that over the past 20 years, the murder rate in the US has steadily declined even as total new gun sales have risen. While correlation does not equal causation, in this particular case the case can be made that it is Van Blacrum whose response is fundamentally right."
that statistic must have alarmed the gun grabbers. probably why they sensationalize every "mass" shooting with "assault" weapons. their ability to control the argument is slipping away. i firmly believe they will continue to sacrifice people through manufactured or instigated shootings using operatives to accomplish their goals
Bravo sir.
I noticed there was no blanketing the news of deaths by motorized vehicles today or this week. I guess it is only the particular method of death by an outside force that matters enough to try to eliminate that cause. Others, meh! Death by motor vehicle is around 20K so no need to reduce the speed limits.
I've posted this before, but it bears re-posting. In fact I encourage everyone to post it as often as possible in other forums across the internet. This is from the CDC and covers 2014 deaths. (Parenthesis daily totals mine) Yet none of these 5,238+- deaths/day in the U.S. alone are reported in the national media......
This is missing the punchline:
Firearms Homicides: 11,961 (33/day)
Everyone else please carry scissors.......??
but No running with them:-)
Maybe Mayor De BlouseIO and his Cronies want to SNAP up them Gun Shares as they are the only shares representing TRUE VALUE, now, and for the future.
The Thin Blue Line though is Laughable. Protecting their Masters and Pension at OUR/ALL COST.
If they wake the Fuck Up though ANYTIME SOON , enough of us, will be standing over the TROLLS on here at the NSA/GCHQ etc , at their desk, with a Baseball Bat and the Thin Blue Line 'never saw a thing '.
This is a Decision Time for the Thin Blue Line.
AIPAC will throw $100 million at his opponent.
...because gun control worked so well for the Warsaw ghetto.
And in Israel too. As does their open border policy, mohameddan resettlement and welfare program, and their signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.
That downvote was some seriously hasbara.
This article proves what is wrong with the two party system. I know plenty of registered Blue Party people who believe in gun rights, but who may have issues with say outlawing abortion (what has become a Red party issue). They are forced to pick between two candidates with whom they disagree. By design, of course.
Heimeytown isn't going to like this.
Yeah, for those who constantly harp on and on about the holohoax, you'd think they'd be all about gun rights. 'cept of course when they are the ones orchestating the mass slaughter.
O what does all this mean? That I started my young life in Vietnam and will end my old life in Obamanam? Geeezzzee it get crazier every day….
Dude, you get 1000 thumbs for that statement.
I had a premonition the other day. It seems the USA is unique among the developed world in that gun ownership is a "right" and there are 300M guns in the US that belong to citizens. Many of these gun owners take this right very seriously and plan to fight for this right when the authorities (NWO) decide to try and take these guns. So the bottom line is no amount of legislation or coercion will remove these weapons from law abiding citizens (from my cold dead hands). This insures an impasse when the NWO is implemented and much carnage.
I am fine with all this.
So the option the NWO has is to go door-to-door to attempt to confiscate these weapons, which is a bad plan (too much bad guy blood and it will take too long), or just eradicate the USA population who defy the NWO plans with a big bang (use a bigger gun will be the thought).
Imagine a squad of armed blue-helmets at your door asking for your weapons and insisting that you let him inject this RFID in you and your families body. Uhh, no thanks.
This will become the ultimate issue IMO. All the NWO needs is a leader who refuses to fight back, kind of like what we have today. No wonder the USA is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
sschu
It is mentioned in the book. It's called the Whore of Babylon, or was it talking about Hillary? I'm so confused....
Yes, I have heard that the Whore of Babylon is the USA, but also the papacy, who knows for sure.
I tend to think the USA will be inconsequential by that time, so the Whore is something else.
sschu
Not too afraid of that scenario (blue helmets) given their combat proficiency thus far. They'd be too busy trying to rape little girls and stealing from the people around their base to get much work done.
If blue helmets come here, it will be Pakis, Congolese, or some other undisciplined rabble. No EE troops will be in the UN force and likely no white troops from any nation.
I ain't skeered.
If we see blue helmuts going door-to-door (trying to) confiscating weapons we have bigger problems than self defense.
Let;s hope this does not occur.
sschu
Well, this only serves to make my point from the previous thread, that most, not all, but most county sheriffs, are on the side of legal, gun-toting citizens.
I've had that same feeling before. City cops, no way, all roided up and will shoot you in the head. County mounty, they seem to be a bit more sensible. No idea why that is, might have something to do with County is more about crowd control, while City is a lot more about military-style law-n-order-n-shit.
That all stands to reason. If you're a rural sheriff you serve your beloved local community. If you're a city cop you police the shithole until you've paid your due. Then you move out to the nice quiet sticks where the people are nice and get the cushy townie job and perhaps one day run for sheriff.
Of course de Blasio would tell them to divest.
They're the only ones making a legit market move.
"carry their legal guns," CC=registered target for FEMA organ harvesting.
Van Blarcum looks like presidential timber to me.
Can you buyy stock in bomb makers? Bombs are too easy to buy in the US.
Sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_armament_manufacturers