22 Comments Add your own

• 1. B Jon Traylor  |  April 20th, 2007 at 9:23 pm

  Thats a nice post Keith. I get it, and completely relate.
  I'm a graduate of Texas A&M University, another perenial football powerhouse. Even though America see's 85,000 rabid fans at Kyle Field, and the Corps and military marching band on every tv side cut, they don't realize, that much like Virginia Tech, its not football that signifies the spirit, its the Aggie Loyalty, Aggie Pride, Aggie Spirit that is only exemplified at Kyle Field on Saturdays in the Fall. Although the 12th Man Tradition at A&M is probably the best real life football story and on-going tradition in all of sports, its not sports at Texas A&M that signifies the spirit.
  There is a saying amongst the Aggieland community that goes like this... "from the outside looking in, you can't understand it, and from the inside looking out, you can't explain it."
  Some may boast of prowess bold, of the school they think so grand. But there is a spirit can ne'er be told, the spirit if Aggieland. After they've boosted all the rest, then they will and join the best, for we are Aggies, the Aggies are we, and we are from Texas AMC."
  Sorry, thats from the school song that 85,000 strong stand and sing at every foootball game, a moving experience. But also the song Aggies sing at every single sporting or non-sporting event.
  Sorry, this isn't about my personal school pride. This is about much more.
  I've been to Blacksburg, VA. Virginia Tech, albeit about 20,000 students less in enrollment, is a school I've always liked, because its a school, a community and students very much like Texas A&M. They have a similar corps of cadets, a unique laid back spirit, cool traditions, good students, and also a perrenial powerhouse football team.
  Today, I called a friend of mine in the valley here, after three days of getting up the nerve to call him. He's an architect, a VT grad, and an awesome guy. I choked up three or four times while trying to leave him a message, letting him know how much I was thinking of him, letting him know how I could understand how angry and hurt he must be that something like that happened at VT, and how angry and hurt I'd be if something as stupidly crazy as that happened at my own almer mater.
  Virginia Tech is probably one of only two schools I've visited (Kansas State being the other), where I truly felt a sense of loyalty and tradition and spirit that came close to that of the Texas A&M Aggie community.
  As a multiple gun owner and user, and NRA member, I can honestly say that the fact this Cho guy was even able to purchase those handguns is a problem. The fact that he was mentally ill and able to buy those handguns is also a problem. This entire fiasco at VT is just stupidly sick, and makes my blood boil. And its gonna keep happening and keep happening, and keep happening, and probably get bigger and more grandeur and more horiffic in nature each time. Enough -- J

• 2. Mitch.Mulhall  |  April 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm

  [As a multiple gun owner and user, and NRA member, I can honestly say that the fact this Cho guy was even able to purchase those handguns is a problem. The fact that he was mentally ill and able to buy those handguns is also a problem…]

  I too am an NRA member and gun owner. In my view, Cho's ability to acquire firearms as a South Korean national is not an indictment of the 2nd Amendment.

  It is a grotesque application of the 2nd Amendment.

  Cheers,

• 3. Edward Troy  |  April 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 am

  I t has been the policy of the NRA to support any whackozoid in the purchase of any type of weapon. It is nothing more than gun dealers looking for profits. They don't give a damn about your gunrights, or the second amendment. They care about their right to sell a weapon for profit. No I don't give a damn about their rhetoric to the contrary if any -- I don't beleive it.

• 4. TeleDogTwo  |  April 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 am

  I am a gun owner. I own three long guns: a black powder rife, my 30.06, and a beautiful 12 gauge double-barrel, side by side, that my late grandfather left me.

  Further, I hunt big game each and every fall.

  I would never, ever, under any circumstances give one cent to the goons that are the NRA.

  Hand guns have one singular purpose; to kill humans.

  There is absolutely no reason anyone should be able to walk into a store and by one so easily. Oops, there is a reason and it is the deep pockets of the moronic NRA gun lobby.

  All hand gun and assualt type rifle ownership should be outlawed.

  Just one hunter's opinion.

• 5. B Jon Traylor  |  April 24th, 2007 at 9:17 am

  I've only got one handgun, a .357 Mag revolver I purchased a few years ago, with a background check, haha. I like to have it close by when I'm in the high country, but have seldom shot it.
  The rest of my guns are hunting rifles, shotguns (a .243, 30/30, .357 lever action, .270, 20 gauge, 12 guage, etc., a very old single shot .22 my handed down from my grandad, etc.)
  I do agree that assault weapons and automatic 9mm and Glocks and the such, don't really serve a place amongst the common public. I've traded at gun shows, and its amazing just how easy it is to get a gun.
  Actually, I do have what could be considered an assault rifle, a military issue M-1 carbine, .30 caliber semi-automatic, with the peep site. This gun was very popular during Korean and Vietnam wars, also handed down to me. (But don't tell anyone!)... and yes, I've used it hunting many times.
  And yes, I often doubt seriously if I want to remain a member of the NRA. I dont' agree with much of their politics. -- J

• 6. TeleDogTwo  |  April 27th, 2007 at 9:00 am

  Hey B John Traylor,
  Thanks for giving us honest and ethical hunters a bad name.

  You can take that M-1 and break it over your own numb-skull. Would love to catch you hunting with that thing. My friends at the DOW would throw the book at you.

• 7. alpha6  |  May 1st, 2007 at 8:55 am

  Well, I am not a member of the NRA, but I do believe in the right of citizens to bear arms. I was in Florida right after Hurricane Andrew, and saw what happens when there is a complete breakdown of civil society. It was only after people started forming their own neighborhood militias with their own weapons to protect their homes and families that the home invasions, robberies, rapes and assaults stopped when those committing those crimes realized that they couldn't prey on defenseless people anymore.

  For those of you who love to quote the left wing media and haven't a clue of what you are talking about, there are very few "automatic" pistols out there, they are semi-automatic.

  "All hand gun and assualt type rifle ownership should be outlawed." More people are murdered by shotguns each year then "assault type rifles" so what is your reasoning for wanting them "outlawed" ? California, has one of the nations strictest gun laws, including a ban on "assault type rifles" and yet has one of the highest incidences of gun violence in the US. Washington DC, has or should I say had, one of the strictest, completely banning the ownership of weapons (which the Supreme Court just struck down) and was the area of some of the worst gun crime in the nation.

  Why is it that people blame the weapons and not the person when looking at what happened at VT? There are hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners in the US who are not criminals yet you would deny their right to own the weapon based on a very small number who chose to use these weapons in criminal behavior.

  More people are killed each year in the US by drunken drivers then with guns. To eliminate this senseless loss of life, I recommend the private ownership of cars be outlawed to prevent any further drunken driving mishaps. Sound logical? No, it sounds idiotic, yet it is the same argument those who want to take away your second amendment rights are using.

  Aside from the gun control issues emitting from the VT killings, why isn't a more important question being asked? What is the government doing to address the problem if foreigners in our country? I for one am tired of citizens of this country being killed by those from other counties. We have enough crime without importing criminals from other countries.

• 8. TeleDogTwo  |  May 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 am

  Hey Alpha 6, I have one word for you: Canada.

  Strict gun laws, one of lowest rates of homicide by gun in the world.

  But, if you want to believe that restricting gun ownership is a bad idea, go ahead.

• 9. alpha6  |  May 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 am

  Canada

  Canada overhauled its laws after gunman Marc Lepine killed 14 women and himself at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique college in 1989. It's now illegal to possess an unregistered handgun or any kind of rapid-fire weapon.

  Canada also requires training, a personal risk assessment, two references, spousal notification and criminal record checks.

  Yet, Kimveer Gill still managed to obtain a Beretta semiautomatic rifle and two other weapons he used in last September's shooting at Montreal's Dawson College. Gill killed a young woman and himself and wounded 19 people.

  Maybe its not the guns that are evil, its the people like I mentioned before. Canada did not even make the top ten when it comes to countries with lowest murder rates. Surpriseingly many Arab countries did, some in which it is legal to own fully automatic rifles like Saudi Arabia and Oman. Guess that puts a damper in the left wing disarm 'um agenda.

  http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-lowest-murder-rates.html

  I have two words for you teledog....Educate Yourself.

• 10. reckless G  |  May 2nd, 2007 at 7:35 am

  [I was in Florida right after Hurricane Andrew, and saw what happens when there is a complete breakdown of civil society. It was only after people started forming their own neighborhood militias with their own weapons to protect their homes and families that the home invasions, robberies, rapes and assaults stopped when those committing those crimes realized that they couldn't prey on defenseless people anymore.]

  Anyone remember that after Hurricane Katrina the Feds came in and took away people’s guns? These were law abiding homeowners with legal weapons for the purpose of defending their homes. Was this a violation of our 2nd amendment rights? If so, why no public uproar? Where was the NRA in this?

• 11. Mitch.Mulhall  |  May 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 am

  [after Hurricane Katrina the Feds came in and took away people’s guns]

  In point of fact, it was not the "Feds" who confiscated firearms in New Orleans, but New Orleans police and County Sherriffs.

  According to the accounts I have read, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered the confiscation, and New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III implemented it.

  While emergency powers vary by state, many states allow Governors--not Mayors, or Police Chiefs--to order the confiscation of firearms during a state of emergency.

  Cheers,

• 12. B Jon Traylor  |  May 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 am

  Whoa there, TeleDog. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to ruffle your pheasant feathers.. Let me explain what type of hunting I've used the M-1 for a few times.
  I've used it twice for wild hog hunting in Texas. I don't consider that big game huntingby any means, nor would anyone else who has hunted wild hogs. As many know, wild hogs are a major nemesis to Texas farm country, and they can completey wreck cultivated farmland, and they tend run in packs of up to 100 or more hogs. So, having a magazine loaded and the ability to fire off several rounds in a hurry is a useful thing. I've had many of those hogs processed and put in my freezer as substance for some great BBQ. I've also processed many more and sent the meat to an orphanage in Juarez, Mexico as food for those kids.
  Further, I've used the M-1 to take down several coyotes in my time who were preying on new-born calves in the field.
  And further, I've shot several skunks, several jack-rabbits (who multiply like, well, rabbits), and a few coons, too.
  So, the M-1 is fun to shoot, alot of fun, actually, but never would I consider using it for any type of "hunting".. other than what I've described here.
  As a hunter, I'm sure you understand.
  A .30 caliber carbine, short barrel, wouldn't even take down a deer or elk further than 50-75 yards. Anyone who would attempt such is game for the DOW. -- J

• 13. TeleDogTwo  |  May 4th, 2007 at 6:01 am

  BJT,
  Well I should apologize for getting up on my high horse there. I was assuming your were big game hunting and that that the M-1 was a fully automatic, large caliber, rifle.

  As for a-6,
  So Canada does not make the top 10? So what, it is still a zillion times safer in that country and part of the reason is the much more restrictive gun laws. That's the fact Jack!

• 14. B Jon Traylor  |  May 4th, 2007 at 11:57 am

  Apology accepted, TeleDog. I'm not only a respectful and dignified and proud hunter, I know a few things about military assault weaponry, both long range sniper rifles and short range automatic weapons, and I've used both in my past life. I'm also proud not use them anymore.
  But I also know that what I'd like to see the NRA become more actively involved in is removing those weapons from our country, removing the ability to purchase firearms like those at gun shows, etc.
  I remember a fun time on my (former) father in law's ranch one day years ago, after recently marrying his daughter, when we went to the shooting range he had on his ranch. He had purchased a 9mm automatic handgun and (what I"ll decline to name) automatic assault rifle at a gun show in Wichita. He was a wonderful man, a good Christian man, a good farmer/rancher/businessman. And he purchased the guns for fun, as he enjoyed shooting them. He purchased them legally.
  I guess I wanted to show off a bit. I raced through the range, played some cat and mouse games, and took out targets rapidly. I showed him what weapons like those can do very easily and very rapidly. It was that weekend that he understood what I was doing "for my country" at the time. That was a long time ago, but I think I might have portrayed to him that even though those types of arms are fun, they are designed for one purpose only, ... and that is to kill, and kill fast, and kill multiple targets. Enough. -- J

• 15. alpha6  |  May 4th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

  Yo Dog,

  "So Canada does not make the top 10? So what, it is still a zillion times safer in that country and part of the reason is the much more restrictive gun laws. That's the fact Jack!"

  I have given you proof that restrictive gun laws are not a predetermining factor in proving that a country is "safe" as demonstrated by some countries with much less restrictive gun laws then the US that have a far less incidence of crime then even your example of Canada. Where is your proof that that shows that restrictive gun laws equates "safety"?

  Facts to back up what you say would be nice....Jack.

• 16. reckless G  |  May 4th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

  Hey guys, even though I’ve never been in combat like some of you, I do own guns and enjoy shooting targets. Here are my thoughts on gun control.

  The second amendment, as with all of our rights, was put in place to prevent government tyranny. In the event that our country is taken over from within, we would have the means to defend ourselves against those who seek to dominate and control us. Disarming the population is the first step toward totalitarianism. Guns that are primarily designed to as Jon put it “kill, and kill fast, and kill multiple targets” would be just what is needed for citizens to protect themselves from an out of control government.

  Stricter control will not deter criminals from obtaining guns, nor do we want government controlled forces only to have assault weapons. I’m all for a well armed citizenry, and let the chips fall where they may.

  Just one girl’s opinion.

• 17. alpha6  |  May 4th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

  Amen Reckless,

  As a matter of fact, recent studies show that those states that have allowed concealed weapons permits to be issued have actually seen a drop in muggings, car jacking, assaults, and other crimes. I guess when the criminals think that the people they are used to targeting my be armed, they think twice about it.

• 18. alpha6  |  May 4th, 2007 at 11:06 pm

  OK...I gotta throw up the bullshit flag on 'ol Jon there. I doubt very seriously that your father in law was able to buy "a 9mm automatic handgun and (what I"ll decline to name) automatic assault rifle at a gun show in Wichita."

  They would have had to be semi-automatic, not automatic which infers fully automatic. Unless he went though and filed for a tax stamp ($200) with a class 3 dealer and that takes months, checks by the ATF and other required checks and paperwork.

  and as far as "“kill, and kill fast, and kill multiple targets” come on. It depends on the shot placement as to how "fast" something is killed, not how many rounds a weapon can throw down range. A knife can kill fast if you strike in the right place, and I knew a guy that was hit 7 times with AK rounds and didn't die...

• 19. Mitch.Mulhall  |  May 6th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

  [The second amendment, as with all of our rights, was put in place to prevent government tyranny.]

  That’s it in a nutshell. But the interesting thing about the 2nd Amendment is what this single sentence doesn’t say. The 2nd Amendment reads:

  “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.”
  ~September 21, 1789

  There were six versions of the 2nd Amendment that were not ratified:

  1. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
  ~June 8, 1789

  2. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”
  ~August 17, 1789

  3. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
  ~August 24, 1789

  4. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
  ~August 25, 1789

  5. “A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
  ~September 4, 1789

  6. “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
  ~September 9, 1789

  Sir William Blackstone (d. February 14, 1780) wrote a treatise on common law called "Commentaries on the Laws of England." In this treatise, Blackstone credits King Alfred (a.k.a. Alred the Great, 871-899 A.D.) for establishing the idea every subject, or citizen, is a soldier. To make this work, every citizen had to own a weapon other than a knife. In 1181, King Henry II issued the Assize of Arms, which required every subject to arm himself according to his means—the poorest freemen being required to obtain at least a helmet and a lance.

  I submit that the collective rights of people are only enforceable when the force of arms is universally dispersed.

  Without boring you with too much English history, suffice it so say that during Britain’s civil war (House of Stuart, c. 1642-1649), both the Parliament and the Monarchy of England proclaimed themselves the protector of the subjects' well-being, and in the name of “protecting the rights of subjects,” both the Parliament and the Monarchy attempted to disarm the other’s supporters. The result was a standing army that was at best an instrument of political agenda. Because both branches of English Government exercised the power to appoint militia officers and select soldiers to its ranks, the militia became, functionally, the protector of competing political objectives, not the people.

  I find it interesting that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment contain language about those “religiously scrupulous of bearing arms” not being compelled to serve in a militia. This clearly is an attempt to soften the idea that every citizen is a soldier. It seems to me an attempt to acknowledge those who on religious—or secular, as the case may be—principle will not fight. Why did the founding fathers cut these words? I contend they didn’t cut them. Rather, they phrased the amendment in a way that would ensure those who choose to fight can avail themselves of the weaponry necessary to win.

  I submit the day those who choose to fight can avail themselves of the weaponry necessary to win has passed us by.

  I submit that the 2nd Amendment calls for a volunteer army.

  I submit that by placing a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in a military funding bill, the U.S. Congress waded into the pond of tyranny in which Oliver Cromwell once swam.

  Cheers,

• 20. Edward Troy  |  May 10th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

  The countries with enforced restrictions on the movement and possession of guns and their use have the lowest murder rates.

  Saudi Arabia has no problem going after individual murderers, organizations such as Al Qeada by their nature and with overt support from the general populace are of course to the contrary.

  Switzerland has a citizen Army. people are not just running around with guns in malls schools and the like There are restrictions on where and when the citizens can possess guns. Many are kept in armories.

  Neither of these favorite citings by gun lobby fans have porous borders allowing the black market movement of weapons. That is one of the keys.

  D.C., NYC and California are not able to restrict the movement of guns at their respective borders due to FTC regulations. Under the Articles of Confederation, they would have been able to do so within the state laws, if that had been an objective.

  The gun lobby supporters see guns as the answer to solving criminality. Stealth, surprise and ease of killing with little threat of immediate reprisal are what the murderer wants. All the yapping about guns protecting people is ridiculous. Most people are killed by people they know.

  Nevertheless, Guns are useful against home invasions at least as a deterrent if there is an alarm eliminating the element and advantage of surprise. I understand that there is an automatic shotgun that if sawed off would be extremely useful for such a purpose.

  Everyone should appreciate the red herrings of a-6 here. Your guns mean nothing if the killer has the element of surprise, even if the killer doesn't have a gun. I think they are just a placebo for the quivering type to feel confident, and are frequently stolen by the cowards who use them in their criminal activities.

  The sensational killing sprees are but a thin veneer for the steady slaughter that has killed two or three hundred thousand since 1970, clearly almost all were deliberate homocides.

  In contrast I won't even look at who wrote it, but someone cited vehicular deaths as a similar stat, and whatever those numbers, the fundamental difference is that just about all of those were accidents -- lacking homocidal intent. I suggest that comparing deadly accidents to murderous intent has a better play with the type of audience that doesn't differentiate between the two. That of course would not include those who are for responsible gun ownership, sales and use.

  Really Mitch,

  maybe we should return to Viet Nam and get that victory?

  I submit that this administration is the cesspool of treasonous evil -- for being in Iraq at all, regardless of the use of what amounts to mercenaries or employees of some sort, since they actually have pay, in contrast to a volunteer who by definition would be unpaid.

• 21. Mitch.Mulhall  |  May 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm

  [I submit that this administration is the cesspool of treasonous evil...]

  That's kind've harsh—must’ve touched a nerve.

  [Guns are useful against home invasions at least as a deterrent if there is an alarm eliminating the element and advantage of surprise.]

  Lacking an alarm, does dieing in your sleep make death more palatable? Some claim that’s the best way to go.

  [I suggest that comparing deadly accidents to murderous intent has a better play with the type of audience that doesn't differentiate between the two. That of course would not include those who are for responsible gun ownership, sales and use.]

  By "responsible gun ownership," you seem to exclude those who comment here. Maybe it was the tone of your comment, but it sounds like a blanket condemnation to me.

  Cheers,

• 22. B Jon Traylor  |  May 11th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

  Alpha, I won't argue with you here, no sense in it. But yes, my father in law purchased an automatic handgun and an automatic assault rifle (which I shot many times) at a gun show in Wichita, KS. I never asked him about the purchase, details, but I indeed held them, shot them, had fun with them, and they came from a gun show back in the early '90s. Nough said. -- Jimbobjumpback.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Bloggers

Most Popular Posts

• CON GAMES: Love The War You’re With
• CON GAMES: God Bless Jerry Falwell
• CON GAMES: Honk If You’re Stupid
• Strength and Conditioning for Snowboarding
• That Bust You Never Heard About At Campo
• Who is Pat Smith? Look to San Luis Obispo...
• KUUR: Is It Really 'Your Radio'?
• Bode Miller Content with Memories of "Kick Ass Olympic Parties"
• Rubbing Elbows With The Stars
• Negligent Scoopers, Beware!

Home And Away

• A$pen: The Series
• Anderson Ranch Arts Center
• Aspen Chamber Resort Association
• Aspen Exposure
• Aspen Filmfest
• Aspen Historical Society
• Aspen Public Radio
• Aspen Spin
• Aspen Writers' Foundation
• Belly Up Aspen
• Colorado Mountain Express
• EatAspen
• Hudson Reed Ensemble
• Jazz Aspen Snowmass
• Kathryn O'Carra Photography
• Michael Faas Photography
• Snowmass Village
• Stay Aspen Snowmass
• The Aspen Club & Spa
• Theatre Aspen
• Wheeler Opera House

Categories

Get A Life

• Daily Pickup Basketball
• American Sign Language 101
• MOVIE NIGHT: Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson
• MAFIOSO
• Big Villagers Sports Camp
View this Month's Events »

RSS

• Entries (RSS)
• Comments (RSS)

XML












R|Mail

Learn About Blog Optimization