Democratic New York State Sheriff Urges Citizens To Carry Guns In Mass Shooting Aftermath

Tyler Durden's picture

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Infinite QE's picture

Queue car accident for Sheriff Blarcum.

Supernova Born's picture

the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

krispkritter's picture

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.

StackShinyStuff's picture

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 

Manthong's picture

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.”

TeamDepends's picture

Since W left office, "mass shootings" have increased 700%! It's time to ban Obamas!

Unix's picture

ya, that assbanana has got to go...shit we have another year of this Obomination, now I am sad again.

FireBrander's picture

"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 murders, no crime amongst my gun laden the fuck can that be explained?

A Nanny Moose's picture

Cuz we needz moar sensible gun lawzez!

Rakshas's picture

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 .....

Manthong's picture

The Truth About Gun Control

FireBrander's picture

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.

A Nanny Moose's picture

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.

Excursionist's picture

"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?

Pinktip's picture

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.

Noplebian's picture
Noplebian (not verified) Infinite QE Dec 4, 2015 7:20 PM
Infinite QE's picture

Lord Bolshevik Bloomberg will not like that.

dynomutt's picture

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.

Unix's picture
Unix (not verified) Noplebian Dec 4, 2015 7:28 PM

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...

nmewn's picture

You carry a 32oz Big Gulp and they'll shoot ya on sight.

Noplebian's picture
Noplebian (not verified) Infinite QE Dec 4, 2015 7:28 PM

OK I will open carry in NY City, what do yer think Sheriff?


junction's picture

If the murder of Phillip Marshall is any guide, this sheriff will be "suicided."




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.

cheeseheader's picture

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!

BarkingCat's picture

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?

post turtle saver's picture

quick, what's an assault weapon?

Manthong's picture

my old little pot metal .22 auto Saturdy Night Special

BarkingCat's picture

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.

SteveBob's picture

If he avoids balconies and nail guns, he should run against Hitlery in the Democrat's primary.

cougar_w's picture

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. 

Unix's picture
Unix (not verified) cougar_w Dec 4, 2015 7:27 PM

I go by this credo:

Have cannon will travel!

nmewn's picture

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 ;-)

Baldrick's picture

thanks for the laugh! that's some funny shit right there!

seek's picture

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.

r00t61's picture

California is one of the most difficult states for a regular Joe citizen to obtain a CCL.

Probably only more difficult is Hawaii.

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.

cougar_w's picture

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! 

BarkingCat's picture

They make .45s that take clips???

FireBrander's picture

1000 people in that Paris theater, TWO witness said they both stopped shooting to 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.

cougar_w's picture

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.

G.O.O.D's picture

One of these clipped in your pocket:


with these on your hands:


Better not let me anywhere near, very dangerous and very fast, especially with boxing training.

post turtle saver's picture

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...

Burnbright's picture

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. 

BarkingCat's picture

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.

Lyman54's picture

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.

CHoward's picture

I have ZERO problems with legally armed people to do so.  Actually I encourage it. 

herkomilchen's picture

We are so grateful you give us your approval and permission.


nmewn's picture

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? ;-)

bada boom's picture

"some poor soul couldn't AFFORD"


Thats anyone now, the gov can freeze all your assets regardless of whether they were part of crime.