Thursday, January 10, 2013

WOW! - When "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest"...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


As one of many many millions who support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms I just can't imagine how the dude in the video, or others like him is helping the efforts of firearm advocates and preservation of the 2'nd amendment.

Reasonable restrictions on firearms (semi automatic assault weapons) high capacity (extended) magazines, more extensive back ground checks hardly seems unreasonable.

I could very well be wrong, but as far as I have been able to determine no one person or group has been advocating a total ban or elimination of 2'nd amendment rights. At least no one with any credibility or authority. If anyone can point me to information to the contrary I would love the link(s).





 Stability of the dude? A bit questionable...

I'm looking forward to Mr. Biden's final recommendations. One can only hope the debate following will remain civil and rational.

 Via: Memeorandum





40 comments:

  1. Wow, what a wacko. The problem I have with this wacko is that the left is foaming at the mouth to make gun owners (me and I think, you too?) look like this guy; in other words, if you oppose new gun control measures, you must a rabid wackjob militia type.

    The anti-gun groups that met with Biden want gun ownership outlawed and every step in that direction, to them is a victory. I understand your point on assault rifles and high-cap mags, etc. but the real aim of those screaming to criminalize such things is to (in the end) get rid of all gun ownership. At least that's where the lobby groups are but lots of well-meaning people see things differently. I oppose most gun control (except some common sense stuff like you say) but am also aware of the left's attempt at getting rid of the 2nd Amendment eventually...

    There's always that damned amendment process though I'd like to see them try.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He is the other side of the Biden coin.

    Background checks for all gun transactions? Sure.

    I am against a ban on semiautomatic weapons. When they disarm the criminals, then we can talk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as "legal" gun purchasers can turn around and sell there guns to anyone - 40% with no background check - with no way to be sure of who even bought the gun or for whom else - with no way to hold accountable the second seller - people like you are making it impossible to disarm the criminals. You are, in fact, assisting in arming them.

      It's a great argument for throwing up your arms and hunkering down like a paranoid End of Times sort of loon. But we have to put the responsibility to the right here. We have a recklessly irresponsible gun policy in the country. This is not the Wild West, guys. It's time to grow the .... up.

      Listen to Les. He's at least listening to every one else! That's a thousand times more than you cons are doing.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Jersey: Did you read what I wrote before shooting off your mouth?

      "Background checks for all gun transactions? Sure. "

      Now, professor, tell us what percentage of crimes are committed with firearms bought at a gun show?

      Delete
    3. "Now, professor, tell us what percentage of crimes are committed with firearms bought at a gun show?"

      Now, genius, tell me how could we know that?

      You are deeply irresponsible on this issue, Silver. Deeply, seriously irresponsible. All for the childish thrill of a gun. This whole issue is just sad.

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. If you don't know that, then you shouldn't be shooting off your mouth about how "no background checks" are contributing to the problem. You've just admitted you don't know what you're talking about. So why should we listen to you?

      You are the irresponsible one, wanting to take people's rights away all for the the heady thrill of watching a strongman government take bold action.

      Delete
  3. "get rid of all gun ownership"

    And there's the wacko right lying about the left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim, don't humor this dipshit. He, she, or it is a wacko liberal troll.

      Delete
    2. BTW, Shaw, I totally agree with background checks and ENFORCING sensible laws that are already on the books.

      But why do you place so much faith in gun control enforced by the same folks that sold guns to Mexican cartel members nevertheless and killed untold numbers of civilians and even a few Fed agents, too. Can't you see that you are being emotionally taken advantage of by people that could care less about violent crime as they laugh upon the masses from their ivory towers? How about DC and Chicago? Ever check the crime rate/gun control situtation in those tow cities? Correlation or causation? Just asking....

      Delete
  4. LCR, can you please link to anything that categorically states a non-fringe lefty group wants to outlaw gun ownership of every kind? I've searched google to see if any of the groups meeting with VP Biden have that as a goal and have come up with nothing of the sort. Where do you get your information that the anti-gun people meeting with Biden are lobbying for taking your and everyone else's guns away from them?

    You do realize, I hope, that that is illegal and would necessitate a long, arduous, and certainly useless approval of an amendment to the Constitution. It'll never happen. But proposals to tighten background checks and reinstate the 2004 ban on assault automatic weapons is reasonable.

    No one is coming to take your guns away. The more you and others repeat this paranoia, the less credibility you have.

    I ask you and Les and anyone else to link to a credible person--not a whacko--who has suggested overturning the 2nd Amendment as a solution to gun violence.

    We've seen people like the paranoid in Les's video [I've posted it as well on my blog] ranting about the government coming to take away their guns. Are there similar videos showing crazy anti-gunners threatening to take away everyone's guns out there on YouTube? I haven't seen them. Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you didn't read my last paragraph?

      Delete
    2. Hi Shaw, you'll find, actualy, that I'm not a wacko in the least when it comes to firearm ownership. I do own some and was taught to shoot skeet (spelling?), hunt deer in my youth and became certified in firearm safety when I was 14 - a long, long time ago. As an aside, did you notice, Shaw, that the Governor of the fine state of New York, during his inauguration speech recently seemed to hint at outlawing/banning 10-round mags in NY? I think that his highly unreasonable. What happen when my police-issue 357 6-shooter seems excessive for politicians and guns-grievance groups? That entails the slippery slope I'm talking about. Should every American be able to own bazooka, machine guns, et. al.? Of course not.

      And yes, I believe many (but not all) of the radical anti-gun crowd want gun ownership gone the way of the Dodo bird. They accomplished this in the UK and Australia through a series of slowly chipping away at private firearm ownership; why not here? Though that is not the stated purpose of the Biden ant-gun summit lobbyist crowd, it is the endgame.

      How about I throw the burden of proof right back at you? Prove to me that the idiot loon in the video represents more than .0001 of peaceful law-abiding gun owners in America and isn't just an idiot loon that the media wants to make a smear campaign of and make everyone that believes in the 2nd Amendment members of anarchist conspiracy militias.

      Why do you hate conservatives so much, Shaw (just kidding on the last, lol)

      Delete
    3. I agree, Shaw, that the right has been somewhat paranoid on this, but the fact that some on the left seem to want to go after right to carry in certain jurisdictions may in fact be a factor in promoting it.

      Delete
  5. Les, did you see the Alex Jones interview by Piers Morgan. I highly suspect that the dude in this video is an Alex Jones listener.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why didn't you ask Silverfiddle what Shaw asked Les?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I do not need to provide a link Joe because my closing paragraph essentially made the same statement.

      I gotta laugh at all you liberals, seriously, even when a "conservative wacko" like myself is on board with supporting reasonable restrictions and control it never seems to be enlugh.

      So you tell me Joe, What the F am I supposed to think?

      Delete
  7. RN, the reason I'm confused is because you've written both of these statements:

    RN: "Emma comes to mind immediately as well as Diane F., gives the impression that the end goal is eventual banning."

    RN: I could very well be wrong, but as far as I have been able to determine no one person or group has been advocating a total ban or elimination of 2'nd amendment rights.

    Both of those statements are yours. Which one do you believe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I responded to your concern at your site. My "regulars" can visit PE if they wish to read my response to your inquiry.

      Delete
  8. Your Honor, I'd like to enter this int play:

    In all the heated debates and knee-jerking on both sides, no one has bothered to ask the parents from Sandy Hook what they think we should do. It is, after all, their dead children that people are upset about and are using right now.

    Exhibit A:
    http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Newtown-parents-demand-police-presence-at-schools-4180701.php

    Exhibit B:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/newtown-schools-superinte_n_2446775.html

    Exhibit C:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/newtown-schools-chief-urges-continued-police-guard-18178012

    Exhibit D (one of my personal faves):
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/White-House-Ready-to-Back-Funding-for-Cops-in-Schools

    Now then, knowing that this Tuesday VP Biden is to speak of his recommendation (or is it rulings?) on gun control, mental health, etc, in America, will VP Biden pay any attention to the voices of those who were more directly affected than he is by this horrific tragedy? Or *cough* will he ignore these people and do as he damn well pleases?

    That is all. Thanks Les, for another interesting article. Obviously the nutso in video is, well, nuts. Aside from a fascination with this guy, like watching a snake eat a live mouse, there is nothing here to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, the views of the parents who lost their children to the violent acts of a mentally and emotionally disturbed individual should be listened to. As well as the many voices of reason on both sides of the debate. That would be, well, objective and logical...

      As to the dude with a mouth of irrationality and diarhea, well, he and those like him (Ted Nugent anyone?) play directly into the the hands of those who would restrict your right to firearms TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

      It is time responsible firearm owners like yourself and Tim speak out, publish as much as possible that is very critical of dudes like the idiot in the video. I have, I'm center right, and I will continue to do so. There are many kinds of tyranny, and you can bet your a** that the dude in the video and others like him would make very fine TYRANNTS if they ever had any power. Hopefully the dude in the video is ordered to undergpo serious phychiatric evaluation, for his own good.



      Delete
    2. Here's my effort. Enjoy.

      http://www.perigonmedia.com/this-is-not-what-second-amendment-supporters-are-video/

      Delete
    3. Very good Don, a job well done. Thanks for the h/t over at Perigon media. much appreciated..

      Delete
  9. Les, for your perusal and consideration.

    A Rational Look At Our Second Amendment

    http://www.perigonmedia.com/a-rational-consideration-of-our-second-amendment/

    I wrote this today and wanted to share it with you for your critique or commenting. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. ConFire3, I read youre post and thought I'd add this...

    Only in recent years has the SCOTUS discovered this new way of looking at the Second Amendment.

    Throughout most of our history, the wording of the Second was interpreted as to have been designed to well regulate the armed sector so as to AVOID the rising of crazy militias who could (and often did) make a lot of trouble in those early days in America. In other words, the government needed to know what you were up to with that gun. You registered it wherever you went. You handled it with care. You registered sales and even temporarily turned it in when necessary. That's the story of most of our history.

    Remember, this is a Federalist clause. This was designed to avoid an irresponsibly armed horde of individuals. The "militia" is the armed populace, yes, but hordes of armed individuals are not militias. If anything, the rise of crazy "militias" around the country goes to show just how stupid the SCOTUS has been since the GOP and the gun loons have held so much sway in DC. They have perverted the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    We have very different circumstances today, but the Second Amendment still works of with think of the "militia" and the responsibly armed populace who have no expressed right to sell their guns to criminals and lunatics.

    It is a perversion of the Second Amendment, as is the recent SCOTUS decisions, to ignore the "well-regulated" words of the Second Amendment. It's playing Mad Libs with the Constitution.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JMJ,

      You do realize, of course, that your comments smack of statism and fear-mongering, don't you? You see, only recently has gun-registration been an issue. In normal, free society, guns did not need to be registered. However, thanks to your ilk, they now need to be. And why? Because your government is scared of an armed free populace.

      So a State-sponsored and well-regulated militia is good, but a militia composed of free citizens is bad? Really? You hate that we have individual arms, but you also hate that we would be in militias. So which is it? Which can we do in your world?

      Your logic simply never ceases to astound.

      Delete
    2. Jersey: You are confusing "regulation" with your desired "elimination".

      It is quite possible to regulate without eliminating. See automobiles. No one, or hardly anyone, really, is talking about eliminating cars. Even cars that can be possibly be used illegally (i.e. driving over 200 MPH) are allowed on the roads.

      Delete
  11. Here's a question for those like Jersey bleating on about the 2nd Amendment.

    Where would we be if there were no 2nd Amendment? Would gun ownership still be a right?

    Before you answer, think about the 1st, 4th and 5th as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It would not be a federal right

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon:

      Just what the hell is a "federal right?"

      The Constitution does not confer rights; it charges the federal government with protecting our preexisting rights that include life, liberty and property, and their corollary rights of speech, worship, gun ownership and to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, among our many other unenumerated rights.

      So drop the weasel words and answer my question. Without the 2nd Amendment, would gun ownership still be a right?

      Delete
    2. Yes. These are basic human rights that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom properly recognized as pre-existing.

      They are not granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, though some who are quite hostile to these basic human rights keep trying to destroy parts of the Constitution (the First... see the people who oppose "Citizens United"... and Second Amendments, usually) in the hopes that it will just make these rights vanish.

      Delete
  13. FYI, I rewrote and reposted an old article which now puts the emphasis on "responsibility" or the lack thereof. No longer merely a gun issue, it seems to be a cultural issue in the largest sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you! I am astounded...

      Delete
    2. Nice to see you here Octo. And, I agree with your statement as well.

      Delete
  14. Les, check this:

    Video game allows you to assassinate NRA President David Keene via shot to the head! Oh yes! Because nothing says anti-gunner mentality like shooting the NRA President in the head! *facepalm* This is a violation of Free Speech, as it promotes the murder of an free American citizen. Tsk, tsk. You cannot do that in civilized society, now can you...

    http://www.perigonmedia.com/shoot-nra-president-david-keene-head-video-game/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Confire: This is like when liberals put out a videogame a few years ago that said it was fun to think of murdering Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin using guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All this is superficial BS with the only purpose being to distract from constructive dialogue. IMNHO.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that have no value but to demean another commenter or spread fallacious statements meant to result in a food fight or crap fest.

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

A note to ALL, the blog Lying Lester, a spoof blog designed and set up by one extremely unscrupulous lying asshat is not the property of this site and there is ABSOLUTELY no connection between the two.

It is disturbed and dishonest individuals like Dervish Sanders of Sleeping with The Devil progressive blog that over time has caused this this unfortunate situation.



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails