A friend posted a comment on his Facebook page about police response policies and times today. His post related to the hypocrisy of politicians who are protected by armed guards around the clock but desire to have the populace disarmed and at the mercy of the criminal element.
In the wake of the Umpqua Community College and Northern Arizona University shootings, there have been renewed calls by Mr. Obama for increased gun control, along with other politicians. The implication of these calls is that law enforcement authorities are always available to protect the citizenry at a moment’s notice. If the government will not allow the citizenry to protect itself, as is now the case in Lesser Britain, then that responsibility must fall to the organized government. A frequently validated saying in the Army is
If no one in particular is responsible for something, then no one is responsible for it at all.
There are several problems with making the government responsible for our safety in the United States, two in particular.
First, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 and again in 2005 that the government does not have the duty to protect us as individuals. Government in general, and the police in particular, only have the duty to preserve a general sense of order in the US. Only society at large is owed a duty of protection.
Second, there are practical considerations. The following was how I responded to my friend’s post:
I have a recording of an actual 911 call by a woman whose home is broken into while she is on the phone with 911. It is not fiction and was used as an exemplar in 911 dispatcher training.
The dispatcher is shocked into silence by the events, which allows hearing the gruesome sounds and screams as the woman is murdered. It is 2 minutes and 51 seconds long from the time she calls when he is outside until the murderer calmly hangs up the phone after the woman is dead. She is screaming “Who are you?” and has no idea of her attacker’s identity. To my knowledge, the murderer has never been identified, much less caught and brought to justice.
The recording is so horrible and shocking that I am very judicious about whom I play it for. I have listened to it many times and it still turns my stomach every time I hear it.
It’s not the only such macabre recording like that in my collection. They range in length from 1 minute 1 second to 3 minutes 3 seconds.
Every scumbag politician, including police chiefs who serve as mouthpieces for their political masters, should be required to play it at the conclusion of their spiels about how they will protect us and a five to eleven minute response time is plenty. It would be the end of that [you know what].
090928-N-1783P-005
(U.S. Navy photo by Machinist’s Mate 3rd Class Juan Pinalez/Released)
tacticalprofessor 
Reblogged this on Stuff From Hsoi.
Most gun owners favor responsible gun ownership. That should involve background checks, securing guns, banning semi automatic assault rifles and large capacity magazines, and proper training, among other things. I don’t believe that the current talk on control is aimed at taking away firearms for hunting and home protection. I have a carry license and will not take my firearm out of my home unless to go to a gunsmith or go to cowboy shooting competitions. Assault rifles only good for killing people, shooting beer cans, killing wild hogs. We pay a big price to maintain our freedom for these kinds of frivolous kinds of shooting. The reasoning seems to be that such a such laws would not have stopped this or that incident. OK, if we can’t stop all of the behavior lets’ do nothing at all. We didn’t stop flying after the first flying accident – we made it safer. It didn’t stop plane crashes. Same with the automobile and scissors. It’s just to bad if a few hard cases are unhappy – we should just stop governing because of a vocal minority.
A cowboy action shooter, telling me that my kind of shooting is frivolous. The mind boggles…
Cowboy shooting is frivolous – no doubt about it. It is also relatively harmless. I don’t know what kind of shooting you do. If you kill cans and hogs with an assault weapon, it’s frivolous to have them around so other “sportsmen” can kill people.
I’m curious how banning semi-automatic assault rifles is “responsible gun ownership”. Could you please elaborate?
For that matter, how banning large capacity magazines is “responsible gun ownership”. As well, what is a “large” capacity? Please put a specific number on it.
When you talk about hunting and home protection, how would you address protection outside of the home?
You said you don’t believe the current talk on control is aimed at taking away firearms for hunting and home protection; what do you believe it’s taking away (if anything)?
You have a carry license, but are selective about when you take your firearms out of your home. Why?
Please don’t construe my questions as “being a jerk”. I’m sincerely curious and am seeking further information.
1. It might keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible. I cannot tell who is responsible and who is irresponsible. Can you?
2. Lets limit it to ten. Five might be better. Then when the shooter must pause to reload he could be rushed as suggested by Dr. Ben Carson. That may be the pause that saves lives.
3. I don’t address protection outside the home. I stay away from places I don’t belong. I’m 73 years old and never met a fight I could not walk away from. I don’t live my life in fear. And my life is not centered on my guns.
4. The ability for some to acquire guns, and semi-automatic weapons which serve no useful purpose. Training might take away their ignorance.
5 . I have never been involved in an incident where I needed to have a gun- out of the home on in the home. If they come looking for me at home I want to at least defend myself or run them off. I have not invested my self in time or money to becoming more proficient with the use of a gun. Hard ro spend dollars an hours when I don’t see a need. If I’m not proficient in firearms use, I should not be out there with one. Many concealed carry holders do not recognize their own limitations. Last week a woman saw a shoplifter leaving a Home Depot with staff in pursuit. She took her hand gun out of her purse and fired nine shots at the fleeing vehicle. Stupid – who knows where those round went. That is not self defense, that is not stand your ground. That is stupid macho bull shit.
You are not being jerky. I hope my responses make sense even if you don’t agree.
1. “might”. I’m not sure this is a sound way to proceed. I mean, apply this standard and reasoning to anything else in this world, and does it still hold up? Is this how we should proceed with life? Should we ban alcohol because someone might drink and drive? Should we ban sex because people might turn out to be irresponsible parents? A free society doesn’t proceed this way.
And even if it might keep things out of the hands of bad people, it also would keep things out of the hands of good people. Why should good people be abridged and punished for the bad actions of others?
2. These numbers… why those numbers? What empirical evidence is there they make a difference? That 10 is “reasonable” but 11 is not? And again, while this might affect bad people, it also would affect good people. That same pause could cost lives. Tom Givens (one of the best and most highly-respected trainers and authorities in this area) says something to the effect that “higher-capacity” isn’t so you can shoot more, it’s so you can reload less. If reloading causes a pause, it causes a pause for everyone — including good guys. And if someone can take advantage of that pause to inflict more damage and destruction, it works both ways — the bad guys could inflict more damage on good guys… because if bans on magazine capacity go into effect, with billions of “high capacity” magazines already in existence, the only people that won’t have high-cap mags are bad guys. So again, only good people are going to be abridged and thus could be detrimentally affected by such a ban.
3. Truly it’s wonderful that you’ve gone 73 years and never had an incident. It’s a testimony to the fact we have a generally safe and civil society, and that you made good choices in life. Alas, not everyone is so fortunate as you. Again back to Tom Givens and the 65 students (to date) he’s had involved in self-defense incidents, and they happen primarily outside the home: parking lots, shopping malls. It’s not people going into war-zones and “the bad parts of town”. In fact, a number of the incidents were right around the person’s home (but not inside of it). In general they weren’t people going to places they didn’t belong or shouldn’t, nor were they trying to get involved in any sort of fight (or could have even walked away if they had that option) — they were going about their lives when someone decided to victimize them (and thankfully failed).
Protection outside the home is quite important, given that’s where most violent crime occurs. So back to your original statement, your implication (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that the current talk of gun control is precisely aimed at preventing people from protecting themselves outside the home — and you seem OK with that since it’s not something you personally find usefulness or applicability in your own life. Am I reading you right? If so, how do you justify this to Tom’s 65 survivors?
4. I won’t argue with you about training being quite important. (More) education is always a good thing. Alluding to a comment you made elsewhere… maybe you should consider taking a class from Claude; I’ve trained with him and he’s not only skilled but quite well-versed in many areas. Sometimes we can learn more from people we disagree with.
5. I agree completely about that woman at the Home Depot.
Here’s my key point on all of this.
Life is full of random and unexpected things. This is why we wear seat belts in the car — we don’t leave the house and expect to get in a collsion, but they can happen through no fault of our own. Having that seat belt on, that bit of preparation, that forethought, can save your life. Carrying a gun outside the home is no different.
While there are goobers in this world, there always have been and always will be. We should do our best to encourage people to get more training, more skill, more proficiency, more knowledge. And we ourselves should always be seeking the same. But despite our best efforts, there will always be goobers — in any realm and on any topic — and I do not think we should lower the bar to contend with them, which is what “bans” accomplish. I would rather lift people up than lower the standard. I’d rather work to help people become more responsible and able to make better decisions. People will rise (or sink) to the standard you set for them, and if we pad the world in such a way that just permits the goobers to continue to exist well… we’re just going to wind up with more goobers. Is that really what we want? I don’t.
One of the principles of the United States is that the rights of the minority, if indeed gunowners are a minority, are just as important as the will of the majority.
In this case the rights of the minority are over riding the will of the majority. I want the rights of the majority to have some say in this matter. The minority gets its way because they are organized, vocal, and have the gun industry supporting them with mega bucks. It’s not a matter of rights, not a matter of being right or wrong – it’s a matter of big dollars going to our traitors in Congress. Take away the money and have the majority get a little more vocal and see what happens.
No, I’m sorry Wayne, that’s not the way the American system works. If it did, we would still have segregation, for example. Constitutional protected rights are just that, rights, regardless of the will of the majority.
If that changes, we will no longer be the United States of America. I don’t what we will be, but it won’t be the USA.
In time the Constitution will be amended. How many amendments do we have now? Gun ownership seems to be more ingrained in the American psyche than was slavery. Maybe not in my life time – but this country will come to its senses.
We fought a bloody four year war over slavery. think that won’t happen when they try to ban our guns?
Wayne,
I keep hearing about these “most gun owners” that don’t actually like owning guns, but only encounter them in talking points from anti-gun organizations, which it sounds like you’re parroting directly. You make some rather curious statements.
I like to target shoot as much as anyone, but that ain’t why i have guns. i have them 1 for personal protection and 2 for the reason the 2nd amendment was created. just in case i ever have to shoot at an overbearing tyrannical government. will that ever be likely to happen. i doubt it, but our leaders and people in places of power. should have cause to fear the people.
Reblogged this on Brittius.
Hi-
I read it when it first came out. Thanks for sharing. Never hurts to get a second read.
I re-post when it is necessary to drive a point home or, at times when I find information added or varies from previous posts. Glad you enjoyed it. Remember: ONLY THE HITS COUNT.
Only the hits count – be damned sure you are hitting what you aimed at. And, don’t shoot yourself.
I have hit enough men that I have aimed at (no bullshit). Thank you for your concern, I will take it under advisement.
Perhaps I misunderstand Mr. Kelpin’s statement. If so, I apologize ahead of time. However, from my reading, I have a different perspective than Mr. Kelpin’s, on several of the points he makes.
First, I agree those who own guns should be “responsible” gun owners. But as a life long gun owner, former military officer, lawyer of over 40 years, concealed weapons holder from two states, NRA certified firearms instructor and one who has taught both firearms usage and firearms law to many firearms owners over at least two decades, I view being a responsible firearms owner meaning becoming intimately familiar with one’s firearm, learning how to use it properly and safely and keeping it out of unauthoried hands. Background checks and banning firearms or their components are nor part of the definition. Rather, those are part of a legal/political process which proport to make firearms use “safe.” Recent history shows the flaws in that position. If one merely reviews the facts of both the South Carolina matter and the one in Oregon, it is clear that background checks did absolutely nothing to prevent those terrible events. NICS already does, and has for many years, done background screening on everyone who seeks to own a pistol, for example. Buy for even this system to work, it must have proper input from each state (not done presently) and the reviewer must do his/her job. In both of the cases, above, the shooter obtained a firearm legally with background checks being in place. They are not the only cases where background checks have failed to stop shootings.
Second, banning “semi automatic assault rifles” has never been proven to be a means of stopping violent crime. All you need to do is a little reserach into the national crime statistics and rifles are involved in a very small % of those crimes. My recollection is something like 7%. Even Congress decided to eliminate the prohibition on some of these so-called assault weapons about 10 years ago after a 10 experiment with the law revealed facts that just did not prove banning did anything. And then there is the small issue of just what an “assault rifle” really is? If you are referring to AR platform which is very popular, while it may look like a “mean machine,” I suggest to you any rifle, shotgun or pistol can be an “assault” weapon. Or how about a ball point pen driven through your left eye ball? Hell, if you want, you can do some real damage to someone with a rolled up Time Magazine! Yes. It, too, can become an assault weapon. And if you don’t think that any of these can kill people, you really need to do a little research. The rifle, like the shotgun or pistol is merely a tool. Each has areas in which it excells, but all can be used in self defense. And, by the way, if you think self defense with any of these firearms is “frivolous,” let’s see how you feel if some thug attacks your wife or daughter and you don’t have the means to engage in such frivolous activities.
Third, large capacity magazine? I tell you what, Cowboy, take a class from Claude and see how fast he can reload a revolver. I suggest it is faster than many can reload their semi automatic. Large capacity magazine is just another vague term people like to toss around that really has little meaning in the real world. So say you restrict magazine in pistols to 10 rounds rather than 12, 15 or 17. Do you really think someone cannot swap out a magazine fairly quickly and keep firing? I suggest to you than many I know can drop a magazine and get a fresh one into play in less than 2 seconds.
Fourth, I can assure you there is a plethora of both state and federal laws related to firearms, their purchase and use which, if applied, would do a good job of reducing some of the violence you hear about. Detroit, for example, that wonderful land of peace and pleanty, and where I spent the last 40 years, has recently begun a program used in other jurisdictions in which any one found using a gun in a violent crime will be prosecuted under FEDERAL law. Not some whimpy state law. These programs use presently existing laws to effectively reduce gun violence. Do some research. Get enlightened. The laws exist. It just take the political will to enfore them. Unfortunately, too many politicians simply don’t know the facts and much prefer to take the lime light by spouting off statements which make them sound good but do nothing. Sound and fury, signifying nothing except furthing a political agenda.
Fifth, laws do not stop bad bahavior; they can only punish. If laws could stop people from doing evil things, then why do we have murderers, rapists, theives, and corrupt politicians? Unfortunately, humans are human. They can and will do bad things. Laws don’t prevent crime. They can only be designed to inhibit and punish. Those laws exist. Use them.
Sixth, and lastly, if you don’t think Mr. Obama wants to take away guns, and I mean all guns, including your little six shooter, you haven’t read his latest pleas to make our country follow in the fatal footsteps of Britan and Australia. Of couse neither of those contries had anything like our Second Amendment, but that doesn’t make any difference to certain politicians. My friend, if you don’t think this current talk is an attempt to get all guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens, I have some Florida swamp land I would like to sell you. I suggest you also take a look at a little history as to what happens when certain populations are deprived of the means to defend themselves from political forces: Germany, Russia and China should give you a good starting place. You probably have never read Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung, but if you did you would read something quite profound: “Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun.” p. 61. I suggest you do not want to ever be in a position where you have no political power. I know I don’t.
There is simply too much here to respond to.
1. We agree that being a responsible firearms owner involves a significant amount of training – training that is not routinely sought. So we must deal with the untrained and uninformed. They are not competent to have a gun – they constitute a danger to all of us. They do not realize how incompetent they are. Back ground checks and banning assault weapons may not be part of your definition of responsible gun ownership – they are a part of mine.
2. I am not interested in taking a class from Claude. One example of a person who has spent hours developing this “skill” does not make much of a case. As attorney, you should no better.
3. If Laws ONLY punish, lets do away with all of them. They don’t stop murder – but does the law not have some deterrent value? So when it comes to this one instance, lets not do anything.
Wow. You make the case that training is nessacary to be a responsible gun owner, but you have no interest in taking a class from someone ‘who has spent hours (actually years) developing his skills’… Contradict yourself much? You are absolutely right in your statement that some people (look in the mirror), don’t know how incompetent they are.
I realize that this is a little harsh and my purpose is not to offend you, but to point out that none of us are in a position to criticize other people’s opinions with impunity…
The decision to use a firearm in personal protection or to even own one for that purpose is intensely personal and I never proselytize about it. It requires serious introspection as Mr. Kelpin has apparently made, which is good. If he does not feel capable of taking a criminal’s life in defense of himself or his loved ones, then his decision to not carry a firearm is a wise choice. Once someone makes that decision, then training is indeed superfluous, just as he says.
I would like to address the items in his Point #5 .
“I have never been involved in an incident where I needed to have a gun- out of the home on in the home.”
* I’m glad that is the case for Mr. Kelpin, however, the last time I was targeted by criminals, it was at 9AM on the Peachtree Center station of the train line running into downtown Atlanta, while I was on my way to work. I was on crutches after a recent surgery and relatively immobile, but the three criminals who targeted me were not. Fortunately, I had a snub .38 in my pocket, which caused them to remember that they were late for an appointment elsewhere. No shots were fired. Criminals can be anywhere, not just ‘places I don’t belong.’
“If they come looking for me at home I want to at least defend myself or run them off. I have not invested my self in time or money to becoming more proficient with the use of a gun. Hard ro spend dollars an hours when I don’t see a need. If I’m not proficient in firearms use, I should not be out there with one.”
* This statement seems somewhat internally contradictory to me. Perhaps I don’t understand his mindset and decision process, though.
I will make the assumption that Mr. Kelpin has family members who either live with him or visit him. In my research, I have come to the conclusion that incidents occurring in the home can be even more difficult to solve than incidents occurring outside the home. The reason for this is the very presence of the family members we chose to protect. Much as we would like to have our loved ones behind us when an incident occurs at home, that is frequently not the case. Having a family member in between ourselves and a home invader makes the marksmanship problem rather more difficult. Competency begins at home unless one has made the decision to not use a firearm in defense of home and family. Perhaps that has been the result of Mr. Kelpin’s decision process. If so, then I agree that training in firearms competency would be unnecessary.
“Many concealed carry holders do not recognize their own limitations. Last week a woman saw a shoplifter leaving a Home Depot with staff in pursuit. She took her hand gun out of her purse and fired nine shots at the fleeing vehicle. Stupid – who knows where those round went. That is not self defense, that is not stand your ground.”
* Here I find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Kelpin; many people, perhaps most, are not as competent as they could be. However, firearms are not the only mechanical devices we routinely use that assessment applies to.
I think we can easily make the same case for operating motor vehicles. Having been a professional driver at one point, I’m comfortable with saying that, by my standards, at least four out of five people driving cars have no more business operating a car than they have flying a jet airplane. They’re utterly incompetent to be in control of a two ton deadly instrument hurtling across the ground at more than a mile a minute. One of my colleagues observed some time ago that the average car generates over a thousand times more energy than the most powerful handgun in existence.
And yet in many cases, being able to drive one lap around a National Guard Armory without running into the building will allow a person to legally operate that deadly instrument for the rest of their lives without ever having their competency checked again. We accept this, along with the attendant carnage created by the automobile in this country, without a second thought. I voluntarily took a Defensive Driving Course two years ago and learned a lot. Although I suggest taking it to many people, to my knowledge no one has, even though it only costs $39 and results in a 10 percent reduction in insurance premium in Georgia. Some insurance companies offer it online for free. If Mr. Kelpin drives, I would suggest as strongly to him to take the DDC as I do to everyone else.
Somehow hundreds of thousands of automobile casualties annually are normal and acceptable even though they are completely preventable by a much more stringent and ongoing licensing process. However, firearms casualties should result in the changing of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, according to Mr. Kelpin. This seems non sequitur to me. Perhaps killing tens of thousands of people by accident makes the deaths more acceptable, I’m not sure.
What is an assault rifle? How large is large capacity? Any firearm that kills an armed thug intent upon felonious harm is indeed intended for killing people, not the least bit frivolous and rightly so. Early man did quite well providing for their families with sharpened sticks until the tribe from over the mountain dropped in with bows and arrows. Is it constitutional to limit hunting and home protection to single shot flintlocks as was the technology when the second amendment was written? So where is the line to be drawn. Right now a legally armed citizen cannot possess fully automatic firearms or rocket launchers but why is it wrong to use a semi auto .223 or 12 gauge to win a gun battle with the thug armed with a Colt 1911? Seems terribly fair to me.
Reblogged this on Disperser Tracks and commented:
I rarely reblog anything . . . I felt this was worth reblogging.
Please, pretty please with a pink bow on top: even if you do not read the piece, click on the links contained therein.
. . . but, you really should read it.
Read it. Thanks
Reblogged this on Women and Guns.
They have “guards” because it isn’t safe to be without one. You can have an armed guard if you want one. It’s just plain dangerous out there – too many guns in the hands of the wrong people. Mark Zuckerberg said “We can’t jail our way to a just society.” I would add that ” we can’t shoot our way to a safe society.”
Wayne,
That has to be one of the most ludicrous and intellectually dishonest statements I’ve heard in a long time.
With any right comes responsibility. As individuals we should be held accountable for our actions. For instance, if I am negligent with a firearm and hurt someone then I should be held accountable for my actions. Same if I lose control of my car while texting and run over a crowd of people standing on the sidewalk.
You sir, are trying to hold people accountable BEFORE they cause harm. You’ve made it quite clear that you are absolutely terrified of the thought of carrying a gun outside of a controlled environment with ‘trained’ people to direct your every move. Then you have the gall to attempt to hold every other responsible, law abiding gun owner to the same standard using the poor decision making process of one individual as your annecdotal ‘proof’. You then go a step further to imply that because you don’t care to avail yourself of training from a reputable instructor that anyone that does is wasting their time and money. I
Simply put, don’t tell other people how to spend their money or hold others to your standards.
I find it highly suspect that an individual who brags about his unshakable conviction that he nor anyone else should carry a firearm in public would spend the amount of time you’ve invested in reading this blog and then pontificating on how the author is wrong. That smacks of the same tactics that Anti Constitution Statists use on social media.
That leads to my next question, who are you really and why are you attempting to discredit the idea that people who aren’t scared of responsibility can go about their daily business without engaging in the mythical Wild West gunfights of serial and dime novel, as apprised to historical fame?
***** Edited due to inability of poster to maintain civil conversation.
The Tactical Professor didn’t write that reply. I did. I noticed you chose the tactic of self righteous moral outrage rather than answer my questions. You then chose to attack the credibility of another individual while bragging about your own soo posed credentials. The reason I said supposed was you didn’t bother to let us know what degrees you have. What’s your PhD in, for instance.
You’ve also made the classic blunder of assuming that a career in academia provides you with an intellectual advantage. Based on your previous statements, you’ve displayed an astounding capacity for conjecture, Cognitive Dissonance, verbal gymnastics and misdirection.
Since you brought up prevention, let’s take a quick look at the difference between your examples vs your plan for those of us who aren’t afraid of a responsibility and all that it entails.
By providing our kids with shots, teaching them to wash their hands, etc we are teaching our children to be proactive in preventing diseases. Your solution to prevent negligent shootings is to remove firearms. That’s CONFISCATION, not PREVENTION. Regardless of your misguided logic for doing so. I’ve managed to teach my child how to be responsible with a firearm. I also teach it’s not the best tool to solve every problem.
Answer the questions Wayne, I for one really want to know. Unlike others, I refuse to presume to speak for other folks.
Steve AKA NOT The Tactical Professor
***** Edited due to scurrilous personal attacks by poster.
If your degrees aren’t important why did you bother to bring them up? Why would you toss that out in a conversation that had nothing to do with academia? Furthermore, why would you then bring up your second career as a cop when questioned on your degrees as the real qualification behind your opinion?
Which agency did you work for?
Why haven’t you answered any direct questions with a direct answer?
Why do you respond with vitriol and name calling when questioned?
Why do I continue to ask rhetorical questions as I know you won’t answer?
Any bets that the next reply will be filled with more name calling and character assassination?
Let’s be clear on one thing, and I say this for the benefit of others, not in a vain attempt to get you to acknowledge an opposing point of view. I deal in facts. I don’t accept annecdotal experiences as proof. If you want to continue this ‘debate’ bring facts to the table. Don’t bring massaged statistics from a special interest group that supports your beliefs without being prepared to back up the data. Think of it as defending your thesis from peer review. If you don’t believe I or anyone else here are qualified to challenge your hypothesis then you sir are sadly mistaken.
Wayne Kelpin, everyone has gone out of their way here to be nice to you and give you benefit of the doubt. I believe it is time to call it as I see it.
Your first post was riddled with Bloomberg, Obama, Clinton, Brady Bunch talking points, none of which are grounded in fact. In fact none of your responses to anyone have been based in logic, observable evidence or fact.
At one point you claim “I have never been involved in an incident where I needed to have a gun- out of the home on in the home.” Then recently “I spent 30 years in law enforcement and I saw more than you could ever imagine.” I want to say this contradiction does not compute. I call BS.
Then when wheeler686 calls you on the floor, you finally pull out your “offense” and “I’m better than you because I was a real professor” cards. Never mind you seem to be addressing Claude Werner: Tactical Professor, not the respondant to your ludicracy. In reading and re-reading his post he didn’t call you any names. Just in case you are wondering, you do not have an unalienable right to not be offended.
If you do own a gun or guns to engage in the “frivolous” activity of Cowboy Action Shooting or for any other “frivolous” purpose such as defense of family, community, state or country, please sell or destroy them. You do not represent the true gun culture any more than the gang banger in the deepest hole of Chicago does.
You, indeed, do NOT have an open mind. For every measured response to your posts, you have answered with nothing but annecdotes and the same old worn out talking points of the progressive (read oppressive) left. You have demonstrated you have no logical understanding of basic unalienable rights, the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Neither can you extrapolate the unintended consequences of the repeal of the 2A and the inevitable blood bath that would follow as a result of the attempt to enforce any confiscatory methods. In short you demonstrate your mind has been made up for a very long time.
This is only my second post here, as your original post to this blog item was only your second post (yes, I went back through this past year, you posted on the OODA loop in April). This may be my last post if the moderator deems it appropriate, which is fine. I read these posts to learn both from Claude and sometimes from comments.
Wayne Kelpin, in light of the written evidence of your own statements I declare you a Petty Petite Tyrant Wannabe and Troll.
So just two more words, Go Away.
What exactly have I said Wayne? That you refuse to answer questions? There’s a fact. That you’d respond with insults and vitriol? There’s another fact? That you’re another Bloomberg acolyte and most likely a paid shill? Oops, that one just slipped out.
I find it boringly predictable that folks like you will default to the exact same comment, insults and evasions. I’d suspect that your name isn’t really Wayne and you probably aren’t a 73 year old man either. It’s so easy to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet these days.
I do hope you’ve enjoyed trolling here. Please give my regards to Shannon and Ladd. Perhaps I’ll see you again on the Kroger Facebook page?