Worst and Best of Times

Posted Sunday, January 6, 2013, at 2:13 PM
View 26 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • It is the height of ignorance and stupidity to compare Obama to Hitler.

    Obama's first four look almost identical to Reagan's. Reagan wasn't the greatest leader, but he certainly didn't murder millions of Jews and lead his nation into global warfare. Neither has Obama.

    Grow up. Seriously.


    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 6:46 PM
  • Thank you for your chastisement, Benevolus, it is always heartwarming that you want to help me grow into as mature a person as you. Did you bother to view/listen?? or did you simply look at my preamble words, and decide you knew what I '''Really''' meant to say???? Seriously, B, you really do need to 'Grow up' and use your own thoughts, if they still exist, somewhere, in your echo-chamber.

    I simply am offering information, to ponder, as well as expressing my own viewpoint, but your 'progressive' mindset seems unable to extend to me the same freedoms you demand for self.

    If, by chance you did 'listen' to the recording, thank you, and if you are actually espousing your own understanding, of facts, that, too, is fine, your right, as is mine. So, I guess we disagree, on most things except that we agree the other should 'Grow up.' Please try, It is not all that difficult.

    Have a nice trip, but don't 'trip.' Oh, sorry, I guess you can't 'fall,' as you already have.

    Have a nice day.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 7:26 PM
  • Here is a (tough?) question for you Navy: How would I have known about the ridiculous comparison made at the end of the video if I hadn't listened to the video through to the end?

    It seems you may have been able to deduce on your own whether I watched it all or not.

    Anyway, Obama = Hitler comparisons now are just as stupid and erroneous as when idiot libs like Janeane Garofalo compared Bush to Hitler with delightful quips like "the 43rd Reich".

    Don't be like the idiot liberals, please Navy.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 8:00 PM
  • Wat?

    -- Posted by CoolStoryBro on Tue, Jan 8, 2013, at 8:31 AM
  • Arley,

    James 4:11-12

    Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 8:01 AM
  • Thanks, Geezer, you are so right. I have reread the comments made, mine as well as the others, and wonder why you lay that command at my doorstep. I can find no judgment of the law, in my words, and meant what I said, purely in the nicest of term-offerings. Would you grace me with an example of my judging?? I do offer opinion, which, I am entitled.

    I do fee, I was judged a couple of times, with comments like '... height of ignorance and stupidity...,' and: In no place, does the video mention the President, but allows the mind of the viewer to form a determination as to the 'other person, from the one, Hitler, that 'is' mentioned.

    Sadly, I see I have allowed myself to be dragged into a debate, from which I now withdraw.

    In the event people do not like what I author, then I invite them to not view my offerings. Should someone read my praise, poetry, and opinion, and take exception, I do invite comments as to what it is that offends, why it offends, and be offered a suggestion as to how I might make right, the offense, if I am in error. I do not have all things perfect, but then ....eh-tu??

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:30 PM
  • "In no place, does the video mention the President, but allows the mind of the viewer to form a determination as to the 'other person, from the one, Hitler, that 'is' mentioned."

    Don't be obtuse. It only adds to the ridiculousness of this post/poem/offering.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:40 PM
  • With the impending unconstitutional gun grab that is about to happen, the obama/hitler comparission is close.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:58 PM
  • How is it close? Enlighten us, CPB.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 12:18 PM
  • Besides shooting people and paper targets,what else is an AR15 and a 30 round clip in a semi auto pistol used for??

    -- Posted by Wildhorse on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 1:05 PM
  • Engaging multiple intruders!

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 1:41 PM
  • Because that's a frequent occurrence.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 1:57 PM
  • "Engaging multiple intruders!"

    So you admit that they're only good for killing people and nothing else right?

    -- Posted by Wildhorse on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 3:57 PM
  • Benevolus,

    If one life is saved by the lawful use of a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round mag, it's worth it. If you can assure the world this will never happen, then we don't need them.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 4:28 PM
  • Wildhorse,

    The AR frame is very sturdy and is a very accurate rifle. It is used in target, varmit, predator, and tactical target competition. It is a very versatile frame, as some are now made for mid-caliber rounds. So versatile it is, home/self defense can also a use for it. It just depends on who is looking down it's sight.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 4:35 PM
  • CPB,

    What if the lives of 20+ children are lost by the unlawful use the same weapon? Outside of combat, I don't know of any stories in which a civilian life was saved because of an AR. I do know of two recent events in which combined over 30 people were killed by AR's. So far the lives saved vs lives lost count is not working in the pro-AR favor.

    Moreover, for home defense, an AR is not necessarily the best weapon for engaging multiple targets anyway.

    Finally, I cannot assure you that multiple intruders will never break into someone's home. I can assure you that the statistical probability is incredibly low, and a person will be able to defend themselves in close quarters with a pistol or a shotgun just as well as with an AR.

    For the record, I do not think banning the AR will solve the problems of mass-shootings in the US. However, banning them is not deserving of the label "like Hitler" either.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 6:32 PM
  • "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." ― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 6:40 PM
  • Interesting theory...though, it doesn't explain the relatively lower gun related deaths in places with relatively strict gun laws.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:00 PM
  • The 26 innocent lives lost is a result of evil. Evil has no problem using a firearm, fertilizer and diesel, or even jet airplanes. Evil people even drive cars into crowds. Evil will use knives. Evil must be stopped at all costs. Evil kills more people with clubs and hammers thana rifle. An armed citizen stops evil.

    The "assault rifle" (still undefined) not a good choice for home/self defense? Once an intruder is inside the house, combat turns into offense. It is now combat, and the best choice for that is the "assault rifle" (still undefined). Just ask any one who has experienced combat. Handguns are difficult to steady in real combat situation, unless homeowner is properly trained, which I am. Shotgun work real well when used with bird shot, reloading fast however is tedious.

    A great example of "assault rifles" (still undefined) being used for self defense, just look st the Korean store owners during the rodney king riots. They were successfully used.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:06 PM
  • Study after study confirms states with strict anti-gun laws have higher murder rates and even higher violent crime rates. States with concealed carry permits have the lowest murder and violent crime rates.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:20 PM
  • CPB,

    "An armed citizen stops evil."

    Not true. There are plenty of reports of armed civilians not intervening in the instance of a mass-shooting. There are also instances in which an armed civilian tried to engage a shooter and were killed. Australia banned guns in the wake of an incident like the one in Connecticut. Care to guess how many mass shootings they have had in Australia since?

    Of course, a gun ban in the US is off the table. So we need to find other solutions to the problem. In at least one instance I agree with Wayne LaPierre, we need a better mental health system to find, treat, and house those afflicted with severe mental health problems.

    Also, a shotgun is every bit (or more) effective in close quarters than a semi-automatic rifle. AR's are small caliber and have a muzzle velocity of 3000+ ft/s. It is likely to punch a hole clean through a human target in close quarters. In fact, many soldiers complain about the stopping power of the 5.56 round compared to the 7.62 they encounter from the AK. In any case, a 12 gauge with 5 rounds of buck shot at close quarters is probably the most effective weapon for home defense.

    Also, most exchanges in a home invasion will be brief, rendering high capacity magazines useless. Sustained fire, such as firing for suppression, is necessitated by battle field conditions, and is not applicable to the vast majority of home-protection scenarios.

    "Study after study confirms states with strict anti-gun laws have higher murder rates and even higher violent crime rates. States with concealed carry permits have the lowest murder and violent crime rates."

    This is absolutely false. Your information is backwards.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:53 PM
  • Could not find any instances where an armed citizen didn't stop a crime, but thousands where they did.

    Australia, as of right now, hasn't had a mass shooting since their gun ban, but murder and violent crime rates are very high.

    It is true, the 5.56 NATO is an incapacitating round, designed to wound and bog the enemy down with causualties. That is true with the M-16 automatic. The AR-15 is a semi-auto loader with accuracy built in. There are many hunting rounds available for the 5.56 AR! usually sold as the 223 Remington that expand rapidly on impact the don't exit the body.

    I'm not a fan of the shotgun as a home defense weapon due to it's recoil and muzzle flash. Also, buck shot will exit the body and will penetrate wall.

    My opinion, 45 ACP carbine with 230 grain hollow points are the best. Lots of impact force, little chance of leaving the body. But falls in that "assault weapon" (still undefined) catagory.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 8:26 PM
  • -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 8:04 AM
  • CPB,

    The problem with your theory is one of false attribution.

    For example, violent crime, property crime, and murder rates in the US all experienced precipitous drops in the 90's (upwards of 40% in many cases), and there was an assault weapons ban in place, the Brady Act was passed, and gun buy-back programs were in heavy use. Some are willing to credit stricter gun regulations for the reduction in crime, but they make the same mistake you do. Stringent gun laws or increased gun rights are both poor predictors of reductions in crime.

    Here is an interesting explanation of the enormous reductions in crime in NYC: Police presence and tactics. There was a 40% drop in crime that occurred across the U.S. from 1991 to 2000 and an 88% drop over the last 19 years in New York City. That decline is twice as long and twice as large. In fact, it is the largest crime decline in recorded history. Bear in mind that New York has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. But again, gun control or gun rights do not predict crime reductions.


    Interestingly enough, there is growing evidence that abortion is a causal factor in lower crime rates. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and not coincidentally 17 years later an enormous, nationwide decline in crime begins. We know that the majority of crimes in the US are committed by people ages 15-24, and that group declined from 18.7% of the US population in 1980 to 13.7% in 1995.

    More compelling is the fact that the five states that allowed abortion before Roe v. Wade experienced reductions in crime 3-5 years earlier than the rest of the nation. And states with high abortion rates experienced larger reductions in crime after 1990 than states with lower abortion rates. The magnitude of the differences in the

    crime decline between high- and low-abortion states was over 25 percent for homicide, violent crime and property crime.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 1:51 PM
  • So in conclusion, we as law-abiding citizens, are safer if we choose to legally own and use firearms to defend our homes, family and property. Research proves this. It is also proven that a legally armed citizen with a concealed carry permit, and equiped with the training that goes with it, can stop an armed attack at the point of occurance.

    Also in conclusion, any attempt to disarm, or hinder their ability to defend themselves, will increase violent crimes. We also conclude that any attempt to disarm or otherwise hinder an American citizen to adequately defend their their home and property is a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

    The 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution guarantees the citizens the right to own firearms not only for their own personal enjoyment and safety, but also to fully defend the Constitution from a tyrannical government.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 6:27 PM
  • Not quite. Guns do not make you less likely to be the victim of a crime. Guns do offer a way to protect yourself, your family, and/or your property should you become a victim of a crime.

    Guns have the potential to stop attacks when they occur, but there are more instances of an armed citizen either being killed or not drawing their weapon than there are instances of an armed citizen actually stopping an attack.

    We cannot conclude that an assault weapons ban is a violation of the constitution. The most recent US Supreme court case decided that banning handguns is not constitutional, but even Scalia in that majority opinion left the door open for other gun bans. Most courts, both state and federal, have upheld assault weapons bans.

    To your last point, all the guns in the world wouldn't be of any help against the technological advantages enjoyed by the US military. This is an antiquated argument that was relevant when the everyone had a musket, and a cannon was the most significant battlefield advantage the government enjoyed.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 6:51 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: