This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.
- 45 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -





""I'm not trying to drum up a militia of any sort," Van Blarcum said"
He says that almost apologetically or defensively, but why? To wit:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Gun violence is a real and constant threat to our children, families and communities."
Takes one to know one:
http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf
Good pro second amendment county Sheriffs like Paul, and David Clark in Wisconsin, & many ofhter across America are true patriots & heros.
Still haven't seen any studies discussed in the MSM on the SSRI connection.
Well, well! A democrat huh?
Well, another self-proclaimed liberal democrat (who has in the past worked for Reagan and carried GOP credentials) takes it a step further than the good sheriff ..
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/04/armed-americans-hardening-soft-t...
Comments, outrages anyone? The genie is out of the bottle. What do we do now? That is short of and/or sans Uncle Gordie's advice?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9ibfCFCW1Y
We have a fail safe device, cliche and dead horse beating as it may be or sound, 2nd amendment was a fail safe device, a doomsday machine. Allow to arm the somewhat intelligent populace. Let them judge, no limit. Even the oppsy daisys out weigh the risks, especially these days. I get shot at quite a bit, and i do. Where i live is on the news for some teeny gets clipped with a quickie fix, but the practice and ritual goes on.
I saw some guy selling nazi memorabialia locally, probably more of a historical precedent, musuems, dishes, helmets maybe some medals. I dont like any nazis, white,black,mex,asian, i am my own man, i am allowed to search the human condition in any direction for no reason at any time. Hollywood homos sells ass, for current billing, i smack that with its own hand, sorry.
Eventually you believe no one, everyone is a wlaking cocktail party hollywood ho. I already did that for 30 years.
All the math and you still suck ass, thats pretty spineless. Life is cheap but mine isnt. nazi 75 years ago and nazi circa 2015 isnt really all that different, propaganda, demonizing, etc....gun control. how about.....lick ass and nuts and good bj, or ill get to slapping you. Hows that..
Merry christmas you bottom feeders
There WILL be more attacks. Protect yourselves and your families. Get a legal gun, learn how to use it and carry it with you. There WILL be more attacks.
Concealed carry? For those who don't have the permit, then "Open Carry". When you don't know who is carrying or not, everyone will be much more civil in the streets. In the old west, everyone carried. People were much more civil in those days, and for good reason. I like this Sheriff.
Requireing a permit to bear arms is unlawful.
The problem: droves of high-capacity weapons drifting around completely out of control, coupled with an unequal, violence-worshipping, racist country, with plenty of alienated, mentally unstable people.
The consequence: about one mass-shooting PER DAY in the US.
The solution: more guns to the people. Because somehow americans believe it's practical to defend against a determined attacker with an assault rifle with the little subcompact they bought and kept in their purse.
Anyone with any experience with handguns knows it is HARD to use a pistol in self-defence: stress does things to you which makes it very likely you are dead long before you've managed to even make your pistol ready to fire. Shooting is another thing: stressed people tend to squeeze the trigger for one shot that misses (or maims themselves) and then be unable to release the trigger again. Pointless I say!!
Your diagnosis is wrong. It is the culture, but it has almost nothing to do with races and even less with weapons. Those weapons were always in reach of criminals and will stay in that reach for as long as there's no massive police state to have full control on it's citizens coming and goings. There's way less guns in France than in USA, yet gangsters can have AK47s if they just want to, if they find them practical in their particular crime.
At consquensce - who cares about mass-shootings, it's about homicide. Burning 5 people chained in tires in South Africa does not count as a mass-shooting, but it is multiple murder. Is it any less relevant?
You're ALSO wrong with the solution. There are situations where indeed granpa and his old revolver turned a situation around. Sure you are not "equal" to an attacker with 30 bullet mag and effective range over 300m with that old revolver... but you at least have some combat potential. With a knife (and even that is illegal in most parts of Europe) you are completely hopeless. You'd have to get on attackers back somehow (which would also be perfect spot for shooting if you had a gun) in all other cases you're toast. With an inferior gun, you're already a lethal threat. If enemy makes a stupid mistake, gets unlucky, is confronted with a bunch of people with pistols at once etc - it will make all the difference. Also even if your defence shooting a pistol from behind a counter would be eventually overtaken - it's still taking time and presenting risk to attacker. If you are in the same situation unarmed he can just walk over and shoot you like a dog. If you've got your old revoler at least he has to advance carefully or try aiming at you when you peek etc... massive difference in time - and the cops might get in 20 minutes, sure as hell won't in 2.
Sure you can find stories about old grandmas defending themselves with nail-clippers as well. What's your point?
Just look at the numbers. Look at the homicide rate (using firearms) in the US. Compare it to the UK, or Australia. Compare the rates of death by accidental discharge in these countries. How come there are so many children accidentally shooting their parents in the US? Or their siblings.
Now come back and tell me straight that the abundance of handguns has nothing to do with it. Come on.
Compare the UK to Switzerland, or Serbia, both countries with high gun ownership rates. Guns are irrelevant they have an insignificant effect on homicide and suicide rates.
In Australia the homicide rate was falling for a decade before the gun control legislation came into effect. It made no difference.
=> What drives homicide and suicide rates is something else.
This is like arguing with a tired four-year old who doesn't want to go to bed:
-You are tired. You need to go to bed. - No I'm not! -Yes you are, I can tell. - No I'm not!!! I can stay up as long as I want!!! Etc. Facts do not work against someone who already made up their mind. And who is to mentally blocked to even try to take in reality.
To deny that murders with guns have nothing to do with guns... I give up! Of course, gun ownership is not the only factor. Far from it. Switzerland is a peaceful country without the inner socio-economic and racial destabilizing forces of the US. Hence fewer murders and shootings. But the murders with guns that do occur in any country would simply not happen without access to guns.
Sure, you could kill someone with a hammer or kitchen knife if you wanted to. But to have a go at a good old killing spree is harder...
...yeah it's extremely hard to go on a killing spree these days without a gun. It's just really REALLY hard to drive up onto a sidewalk at rush hour if somebody wanted to.
So, do you think we should ban cars or pedestrians or the ADA ramps that ease access to the street? ;-)
So you are upset about killings where guns are the tool of choice but OK with boms, cars, poison, etc? You type pretty good for a four year old.
Because we refuse to accept their gun control premise it's like we're speak a foreign language to them and they just can't respond....lol.
Which is fine by me as I can't relate to someone saying "cars cause X car deaths per year" and "electricty causes X electrocution deaths per year" etc. anyways, I have no idea what the hell they're talking about...they never say they want to ban either of them.
"But the murders with guns that do occur in any country would simply not happen without access to guns."
And if nickels were worth 100 dollars each I'd be a millionaire...but they're not.
And guns are not going away, no matter how hard you hate them. What you need to do is figure out how to live with them. I'm for some reasonable restrictions and regulations, but the principle of the second amendment still stands. An American citizen has the right to own a deadly weapon, in this case a gun. This right was put in place not so that citizens can kill each other more easily, but so that they will never be helpless against their GOVERNMENT. Which they have the right, even the obligation, to overthrow if they exceed their authority.
Do you understand the obvious problems with the government forbidding this? Why would you allow them to take away your right to forcibly remove them should they go rogue? What are you gonna do then, vote them out of office? Why would they agree to go if you couldn't back up your 'request'?
And don't give me the line about how citizens with pop-guns are no match for the military. That isn't the point. The point is to keep them aware that firepower goes both ways...I don't have to 'win', all I have to do is make you aware of the potential cost of whatever it is you think you're doing.
The second amendment is less a right of the citizenry, and more of a warning to potential despots of the cost of taking that citizenry on. It's there for a reason, a damned good reason, given history. These people cannot be trusted, period. If you don't want to exercise the right, more power to you. But do NOT infringe on anyone else's right to keep their would-be rulers on their toes.
Yes, I understand very well the background for the american gun culture. Americans do not like to be governed. The government is seen as "they" when in a "ideal" democracy the government is elected and approved by the people, thus seen as "we". Why should we be afraid of ourselves?
The second amendment is such a misunderstood part of this debate. Hardly any proponent of "free guns" even took the time to read up on american history and the background to the second amendment.
The only thing you really have to do is read the second amendment. The answers are right there.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, each state has the right to form a militia (armed force) to protect the state from any disruptions from enemies both foreign and from within. The people have a right and an obligation to protect themselves. Pretty straightforward.
The second amendment is not a call for anarchy. The founding fathers wanted to start a community, not abandon civilisation
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, each state has the right to form a militia (armed force) to protect the state from any disruptions from enemies both foreign and from within."
And where do suppose the militia's arms were/are kept?
Well I'll tell you, the arms were/are not kept under lock & key and guarded by "the state", they are kept in the homes of the militia members themselves (the people) for the obvious reason that the Founders feared that the very state they were creating could very well turn against them (it's own people) at some point in the future with it's army of paid professional soldiers and bureaucratic paper pushers.
The militia is us, not it (the state) or them (government employees or it's soldiers).
And it's also saying "the right" in question is a pre-existing right, it's acknowledging the peoples right to keep and bear arms was there long before they created a centralized federal government that might possibly confront them.
Do you not realize that when you throw in that qualifier "homicide rate (using firearms)" yoou undercut your entire argument? Seems that you are only upset when someone is murderd by a firearm. TO be honest you must discus violent crime before and after the confiscation. Are you more upset when someone is killed by a gun as opposed to being stabed to death?
Please start with Chicago ...
(oops ...)
(they already over-regulate)
(and they are a murder-capital - who would have thought?)
What about the mass shooting in New Orleans a couple of weeks ago, where a dindu felon (he can't have a gun right) opened up on a crowd of other dindus at a park including women and children.
For some reason the national media seems to have overlooked that one.
Or the shootings, rapings, and beatings of white folks by dindus in EVERY FUCKING CITY in this country, EVERY FUCKING DAY?
A militia is exactly what is needed. A white millitia. To secure a future for white children.
Fuck off.
I am running a sales call on near west side Chicago today. I sell remodeling products and services. According to current crime stats there have been 47 murders by gun shot and 304 other shootings in the two districts closest to my sales call.
Would anyone reading those stats and of sound mind go anywhere near those neighborhoods unarmed regardless of CCW laws. Does a hood rat give two shits whether the 9mm I carry is being legally or illegally carried by me ? They understand one thing and one thing only , predator/prey. Don't be the prey.
You could never pay me enough to be a cop in a big city regardless of salary and pensions. They are paid to respond and clean up. Remember the cops are just minutes away when you need them right now.
Fire and police protection in big cities is and always has been a fire extinguisher and a 44 magnum .
Good weekend to all. In the woods with my bow this afternoon and out of the jungle .
This is how I see it:
US government released into public possible arms restriction. It was intentionally fake alarm. Gun sales soared big time. Also wars around the world and biggest arms seller in the world is US. This made government and gun manufacturers huge profits and also helped non-existent GDP.
Americans bought on panic and gave them money. Government couldnt care less about mass shootings and if anything, it only push their other agendas forward.
You have been cheated once again.
Looks like the requisite "well-regulated militia" is indeed present and pertinent in the 21st Century after all.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/fred-reed/government-powerless-stop-terrorism/ Security Theater: Customary Federal Pointlessness
One law man gets it.
I don't think he got the memo.
"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."
Once again, an ASSAULT WEAPON is capable of being switched to fully automatic fire (think: sub-machine gun). The Germans first developed these weapons which have since been copied by all militaries.
These idiots keep usind the wrong term for simple semi-auto rifles that we've been usings for 100 years. Assholes.
Sheriff Van Blarcum may be meeting a nail gun if all of this 2nd Amendment guff gets a little traction. We don't tolerate that type of trash talkin' in these parts.
Look!
A sheriff telling the people what they want to hear so he will get reelected.