"There are terms for those who put their lives in the hands of the police, the courts, the government, anyone but themselves. Those terms are often such as "the victim" or "the deceased."

You forgot the term "law abiding" - it's what separates us from the Neds of this world.

So those that take responsibilty for protecting themselves are somehow not law-abiding lee? Please explain.

Still deleting comments over at blue I see lee, what a surprise.

Most folks that think we should rely completely on the police and the courts are usually talking about someone else. Rosie O'Donnell, Mayor Richard Daley and Assistant Mayor Rod Blagojovich are prime examples.

Thanks to people like Lee who REFUSES to fight terrorism and close our borders, i now have to protect myself, my family, and my property with AK47s and grenades etc. I have no choice.

"The lesson is simple: in the end, our own safety is our responsibility." Jay

Great idea Jay. It's also catching on in Iraq:

Attacks in Baghdad killed 13 people as prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including one of the deadliest attacks of the four-year Iraqi conflict.

I can't wait to see how that works out.

"to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives"

220 fewer terrorists. good.

People who take responsibility for their own safety are ALSO "law abiding".

Now if they extended, that ability to searching out Ned and blowing his brains out.....well then "law abiding" not so much.

Does that example?

"The next time you read an argument about gun control, and you hear the standard bits about "hunting" and "waiting periods," think about this story." -- Jay Tea

A far more relevant story is given by Lorie in the discussion on another thread below. A military dude (certainly with access to weapons) is easily gunned down. Why? Because the criminal, having unlike the victim foreknowledge that a crime will be committed, draws his weapon first. And your own weapon isn't really doing you much good, as you feel the bullets ripping into your body, is it now, conservatives? Yes or no??? Cat got your tongue?

These liberals-- they crack me up. They suggest that the best way to avoid getting attacked is to avoid taking self-defense courses.

Good God, does Barney live, breath, eat and sleep Iraq? He turns every blog into a forum on Iraq.

What the liberals do not understand is that self defense weapons rarely get used. I have had a shotgun in my house for over 15 years, and thankfully never have had to use it. Having guns do not make people into cowboys looking for a fight. I hope I never have to use my gun, but I sleep like a baby at night knowing it is there if I need it.

Herman, was that supposed to be an argument or something? By the way, a military "dude" does not have "certain" access to arms by virtue of military service. Service arms are stored and checked out for specified purposes. they don't just pass 'em out like sticks of chewing gum.

As for citizens, the Second Amendment does not guarantee successful self-defense, only the opportunity.

So, Herman...
So by your logic, none of us should be armed because the armed criminals will always be in a position to strike first. And therefor it is futile to be be prepared.

Even by the standards of your previous postings, that is asinine and daft.

By liberal logic all of the towns, cities, and counties that passed laws allowing (some requiring) every qualified citizen to be armed and saw a drastic reduction in violent crime just hit a lucky streak. Today one of the wheels in D.C. was robbed by 'armed' thugs, (the only armed people in D.C. with the guts to use a weapon). Even the police are terrified they'll go to jail if they pull their weapon and citizens die. They just surrender like a kitten along with the rest of the democrats. All of the democrat controlled cities are on the 'victim' of mass murder list.

Herman!
Herman!

A military dude (certainly with access to weapons) is easily gunned down.

You need a monitor to vet your questions before you post them. You are being treated with extraordinary courtesy by active duty and vets here.

The Democratic Party: Making the world safe for criminals.

So what is your argument? That all persons should be able to buy what ever gun they want at at any time without any law enforcement interference?

I own half a dozen guns, but my hunting knife is my preferred home defense weapon.

If you live with kids a gun is basically useless. You can't leave it easily assessable or loaded. Try doing that in the dark during a home invasion.

Surprised you didn't I.

So what is your argument? That all persons should be able to buy what ever gun they want at at any time without any law enforcement interference?

Well, a reasonable exception can be made for convicted felons or people who've been diagnosed with a mental illness which may lead to violent behavior.

But, yes, other than those, the right to buy a gun should be the same as the right to buy a gallon of milk--and just as simple.

I know that guns are used about a thousand times -to stop scum like ol' Ned here- for every one time that an evil,deer killing republican leaves his out to be used as an instrument of unintended tragedy, and it is also obvious that these facts will never see the light of day in the darkness that is the MSM, but just thinking of the Ned'ster emptying his bowels while stairing down the barrel of the new best friend, of the woman who he would "make his own", makes me smile with delight.

Here's to the liberation that moment would bring to Neds former victim.

Still deleting comments over at blue I see lee, what a surprise.

You mean, even with their 1.5 comments average per post, they would actually delete comments? Must be an aversion to success. You see it everyday among socialists.

D-Hoggs:

Still deleting comments over at blue I see lee, what a surprise.

You were expecting better from Blue's "Thief-in-Chief?"

bobdog:

Rosie O'Donnell, Mayor Richard Daley and Assistant Mayor Rod Blagojovich are prime examples.

Correction, the extremely anti-gun Rosie has her own "hired guns" who pack heat to protect her.

And lets us not forget the asshat sen. James Webb who didn't own a gun before he did as he marched into the Capital bldg in defiance of local laws..

barneyGRUBBLE:

I own half a dozen guns, but my hunting knife is my preferred home defense weapon.

What's that saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight?

Lot'sa luck barn, hope you don't meet the wrong burgler.

Gee, wonder how many child hunting knife accidents there are in the U.S.?

Most folks that think we should rely completely on the police and the courts are usually talking about someone else. Rosie O'Donnell, Mayor Richard Daley and Assistant Mayor Rod Blagojovich are prime examples.

Don't forget the creator of the anti-gun crockumentary, Bowling for Comumbine, Mikey Moore and his armed body guards. (And boy, are they earning their pay.)

marc, how many kids have blown their heads off with a knife?

In my home, in the middle of the night with the element of surprise I would not bet against my skills with a knife.

The other option is to go to the gun locker, load the weapon and than shoot the intruder in the dark without knowing who the intruder is.

How do you know that the intruder has a gun? How do you know that the intruder is not a drunken neighbor that went into the wrong house or your daughter's boyfriend sneaking for some smooching?

"I own half a dozen guns, but my hunting knife is my preferred home defense weapon."

Barney, regardless of one's opinion on gun control, that just is not a sane comment. * shakes head sadly *

Surprised you didn't I

No barney, you didn't surprise anyone. We are all accustomed to you spinning tales.

In my home, in the middle of the night with the element of surprise I would not bet against my skills with a knife.

barney, when he's not doing battle with right wing whack jobs on Wizbang, spends an hour a day honing his knife throwing skills. When his knife fails him, he'll either garrote the invader, or rip the heart out with his bare hands.

After you purchase the gun there's a ten-day waiting period until you take possession."

Why does it take ten days to get the okay to purchase a handgun, but the Senate's Illegal Immigrant Amnesty Bill required only 24 hours to do a background on an illegal immigrant?

Haha! Trick question. They don't want me to own a gun, but they want an illegal to get amnesty.

barneyGRUBBLE

How do you know that the intruder has a gun? How do you know that the intruder is not a drunken neighbor that went into the wrong house or your daughter's boyfriend sneaking for some smooching?

The operative word is INTRUDER!

He/she/it is unauthorized to be in my house in the middle of the night. Once he/she or it is inside a window sill or door jam the sob is dead via a 44 magnum.

John, good point. The background check should be completed more quickly, and ALL purchases should be screened.

Your other point is not so good and I will be happy to show you why if care to drop by my house one of these nights.

I will leave the the door unlocked for you, just come on in.

Your other point is not so good and I will be happy to show you why if care to drop by my house one of these nights. I will leave the the door unlocked for you, just come on in. Posted by BarneyG2000 | July 9, 2007 9:20 PM

Another anonymous lefty on the internet, breaking bad on another anonymous person on the internet. Geez, if I had a buck for everytime I've witnessed that.

Just last week on another blog, a deranged lefty was ranting about the coming revolution, , all us right wing whackos better watch out. When told we've waiting for them to rise up for years, anonymous deranged lefty said to the other anonymous internet user he would be sliced and diced before he knew what hit him.

barneyG, you are pathetic.

"So, Herman...
So by your logic, none of us should be armed because the armed criminals will always be in a position to strike first." -- SCSIwuzzy

Wuzzy, though this might be difficult for you to understand, if "none of us" had a gun, then the criminals wouldn't have guns too. No guns means no one dies by the gun. Is that too difficult for you?

I'm not saying that we can bring gun ownership rates (and with them, murder rates) down to that found in Western Europe overnight, but it can happen if the public ever becomes so sickened by all the carnage caused by guns (death tolls easily dwarfing your beloved 9/11) that it is moved to act.

Herman!
You ignore the existence of evil. If you want to start with eliminating guns, then what next? Knives? Then what?
This argument centers on and is based on personal responsibility. What have you to offer on that?

Herman, Ned doesn't need a gun.

As a small female person I take offense at the idea that a tool that makes me the equal of a 200 pound man should be denied us all in order to make us safe.

That's not safe, Herman.

We could take away knives and baseball bats too, and a man could still kill me with his bare hands.

Herman -

You can't uninvent the gun. It's too simple a concept.

And if you try confiscation, the law abiding disarm themselves while the criminals don't. Net effect - a 'win' for the criminals.

It would take literally decades for the firearms currently in circulation to wear out or rust out. I've got a 1956 Soviet SKS without a speck of rust on it, and I haven't done much maintenance on it at all. It'll most likely outlast me by a good 50 years. And we won't even talk about the Enfields - those things are about as durable as a sledgehammer.

John in CA -

The poor bastards waiting for 'the coming revolution' are overlooking one thing - there's not ENOUGH people pissed off about current conditions to rise up and overthrow the current systems. We've got elections - that's a 2 to 4 year safety valve. You get a revolution where there's enough pissed off people dissatisfied with their current (fill in the condition) who see no possibility of change unless blood runs in the streets. And right now, that's not at all likely. We don't have mass unemployment, the government isn't repressive - hell, it doesn't even approach Tsar level repression - and the people are supposed to rise up because someone wants them to? The blood running in the streets would most likely be the blood of someone who calls for rebellion... and they know it if they've got any contact with reality. Too many people have it too good - hell, even my brother the Wal-Mart janitor gives those people the disrespect they deserve.

They have a 'dream' - but it involves THEM being at the top of the heap when the dust clears after the destruction of the old order, and if it requires a lot of dead followers to get them where THEY think they should be, well... someone's gotta carry the spear, and it won't be them. As long as they get theirs - who cares how many die to put them in power?

It's a good thing the really rabid, rebellious left is so lacking in charismatic leaders.

The poor bastards waiting for 'the coming revolution' are overlooking one thing - there's not ENOUGH people pissed off about current conditions to rise up and overthrow the current systems

Hey, the guy who was ranting about the coming revolution goes by the screen name hashfanatic. What'd ya expect.

Herman, our non-firearm homicide rate is higher than the rates you reference. We have a violent society for a wide variety of reasons - your belief that gun control is the solution to that doesn't survive any scrutiny.

Good Lord, I can't believe there are still people who think guns should be outlawed and firmly belive if they were, we'd all be safer. To such people, please consider how many miles of shoreline we have around the country and how many miles of porous border in which guns could be smuggled. Please consider the fact that if guns are outlawed, a citizenry hungry to protect themselves will most assuredly buy those black market firearms which have been produced with no safety regulations and nothing to ensure the quality of the weapon. Any time something is outlawed the black market is flooded with inferior products which ensures a steady flow of cash to an underground of criminals preying on the buyers and the innocent.

Then we have Barney, superman, crowing about his knife wielding prowess as if he's better than the rest of us who feel safer with a gun. Barney, sir, the point is protecting one's self and family from harm. If you're so good with a knife you think you can stop someone with a .44 entering your home from harming you, then more power to ya. The point is self-protection. Me? I feel better knowing I can knock 'em back a couple feet. I can just imagine the bemused look on a robber's face when he sees me with a knife in my hand.

BarneyG2000,

If you live with kids a gun is basically useless. You can't leave it easily assessable or loaded. Try doing that in the dark during a home invasion.

That's just a technical problem and it has a technical solution. You need a gun safe that can be quickly opened in the dark. One manufacture says "Our patented No-Eyes Keypad and Bio pad provide lightning-quick access, even in the dark." You put a loaded pistol in the safe and have the safe near your bed. When you need your pistol it's just seconds away from being in your hand and ready to shoot. When it's in the safe you don't need to worry about your kids (or your wife) getting at it.

Such a safe goes for as little as $140.00 plus shipping. Don't leave your family unprotected. Be a man. Do it for the kids. You'll sleep better knowing you have a loaded gun at the ready. Your wife might not sleep so well, but that's her problem. She can get her own gun.

I'm all for gun control: That's hitting what you aim at. Real simple, right Barney and you other gun control freaks.

And if you are real serious about gun control, please go to Iraq and get them to disarm.

Do law-abiding American citizens (and legal residents) have the right to have and uses firearms for self-defense or the defense of their family members?

We all know about the Second amendment, but are there other constitutional and/or court created rights that come into play. I believer there are.

One of the most fundamental rights any of us have is the right to life, which can be assumed, but it's also enumerated in the 14th amendment.

Years ago when pro-life groups tried to close down abortion clinics the Supreme Court ruled that any constitutional right also protects the means to exercise that right. Well, if life is a right, then the means to protect one's life is also protected.

Some will say that the means of protecting one's life is provided by police, but courts have ruled multiple times that police are not required to protect anyone's life apart from making a specific promise to do so as in protecting a witness.

The result is that people have the constitutional right to the means of self-defense. That begs the question "what are those means?". While military uses their weapons for both offensive and defensive purposes, civilian police carry side arms only for defensive purposes. Police carry non-lethal weapons for both offensive and defensive purposes, but their side arms are for defensive purposes only. Thus, the government itself has determined the means of defense is the side arm (revolver or pistol).

I have a concealed carry permit, yet seldom carry. The important part is that it's my choice. Free people have always had the right to arm themselves, and I'm one of the free.

Herman,
YOu show your ignorance. "If wishes were fishes, there'd be no hunger".
You've never heard of a zip gun, obviously.

I find it remarkably hard to believe that, after all of the various events in the past few years in America (Virginia Tech, for example), people think that continuing to try and outlaw/limit/control/neuter firearms, and those who would wish to use them, is going to accomplish the smallest imaginable thing. There it was, a "gun-free" zone, and 32 (was that the count?) innocent children were killed by a firearm.

Goes to show how useful laws like that are.

Jay Tea is, indeed, correct - the one time I actually have had to call 911 here in San Diego (rather amazing... I have lived here for two months, and have only had to call once), I was put on hold for about two minutes. Now my emergency was not life-threatening (the fire alarm for my complex went off, and maintenance apparently has no idea how to turn it off), but in those two minutes alone, a single armed person could have killed myself and my entire family. Add in the time necessary for the police to respond (five to fifteen minutes, depending on where you live), and calling 911 is about as useful as doing a song and dance routine when faced with a home invader, someone robbing you on the street, or any of a number of situations.

In the end, we all, every one of us, have a right to the continuance of our lives. As the saying goes, "If someone tries to kill you, you try and kill them right back," - as far as I am concerned, if someone is threatening my life, they just lost their right to theirs. Self-centered of me? You are damned right. However, blithely signing over the defense of our lives to someone who largely does not care, cannot get to you in time, and has no way of helping immediately, just so you can fool yourself into thinking that you are somehow safer by preventing all law-abiding individuals from having firearms?

That is just the definition of lunacy.

Criminals are criminals because they break laws. What is one more (rather small, insignificant) law to them, when they have already probably broken so many, and are on the way to breaking so many more?