Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SHOOTING: Making sure no one’s safe from guns anywhere

Letter by Charles H. Mathias, Steilacoom on Jan. 3, 2012 at 1:11 pm with 185 Comments »
January 3, 2012 1:11 pm

Since hunting is not allowed in national parks, why on earth would anybody want or need to take a gun into one, unless it was to shoot at people?

Of course, using the insane, circular logic of the confirmed gun lover, the law allowing firearms into national parks now makes perfect sense. After all, we must protect ourselves from the possibility of another gun-toting lunatic deciding it’s a lovely day for target practice in the Longmire parking lot.

Because any average John Wayne wannabe packing heat could have easily taken out the guy who shot that ranger, of course – even though Ranger Margaret Anderson, a professional law enforcement officer trained in the use of firearms, obviously and tragically couldn’t.

Having won every battle, no matter how questionable, does the NRA now have nothing better to do than show off its clout by forcing politicians to indulge any crazy whim that might pop into its head?

Tags:
, ,
Leave a comment Comments → 185
  1. beerBoy says:

    There are two lessons that should be taken from this tragic event:
    1) Park Rangers are law enforcement officers who put their lives at risk for the public good.
    2)Our military and Veterans Administration needs to do a much better job at bringing our warriors back to civilian society.

  2. cclngthr says:

    The problem with that infividual carrying the type of weapons he had is an average person would not have a chance because the weapons he was carrying were more powerful, and have a longer range than the typical weapon most people carry.

    I carry a .45 most of the time. Although I have 2 .50 caliber weapons, they are heavy and bulky, plus the power of the .50 can be a bit much for a crowded space.

  3. muckibr says:

    cclngthr, does your job require you to carry a weapon, like a police officer? What kind of job? Or do you just carry one because you like to? Just being curious.

  4. Beerboy? Couldn’t agree with you more.

  5. Fibonacci says:

    Charles
    I may be wrong, (I frequently am) but I am not sure about the legality of taking firearms into a national park anyway. But beerboy is 100% in his post. We send these people into horrible battle conditions and then expect them to come home and be the same as before then went.

  6. BTW? What good would a .45 do against the weapons this whacked out loser had? For what other purpose would the weapons that the loser had have other than to kill people? Yes, we do have the right to arm ourselves NRA and to protect ourselves and maybe its too late to ban these weapons. And heaven forbid anyone with a record or a psychotic history and on psychotropic drugs, should be subject to a background check and refusal of a firearm. After all, they have precious rights not to be infringed upon. I also refuse to refer to this maggot as a vet, he lost that honor the second he shot innocent American citizens.

  7. truthbusterguy says:

    Mr. Mathinas says, “Since hunting is not allowed in national parks, why on earth would anybody want or need to take a gun into one, unless it was to shoot at people?”

    He is obviously a couch potato. Spend three days and nights on the Wonderland Trail system and you will be glad you are packing when you see so much cougar and bear sign on the trail and at campsites.

    I blame the TNT for printing pictures of a crazy guy with a gun to bring out the gun rights haters. How about a letter about not enforcing the gun laws we now have on the books. Thanks to Congress for allowing me to legally protect myself and kids in the park. I was doing it before the law was passed but it’s nice to be legal again.

    Mathinas needs to man-up and get off the couch.

  8. Fortunately, people like the letter writer who’re over-emotional reactionaries, do not make law. I’m guessing he would be _very_ surprised at the number of law abiding people he passes every day who carry. Those are the thousands that you never hear about because they’re .. law abiding. About every thirty minutes, a drunk driver kills someone in the United States, yet I just don’t see the emotional hand wringing to outlaw booze or cars. The case of the psycho on the mountain was a tragedy, but that’s just what he was: a psycho, and all the gun laws in the world weren’t going to prevent him from going nuts on someone.

  9. frida: “What good would a .45 do against the weapons this whacked out loser had?”

    That’s just a weird thing to say. I could incapacitate a bad guy with a .32, making anything the bad guy’s carrying a moot point, nyet?

  10. lanq? A background check for his criminal record, and the reason the Army didn’t send him on tour again PLUS a psychiatric evaluation/ check would have put him on the radar and he should NOT have been able to legally / or illegally have those weapons that his girlfriend repeatedly said he had. Putting him in jail for possession might have saved a life. We put people in prison for having pot but heaven forbid they should face prison for having such weapons! So respectfully, I beg to differ with clear common sense.

  11. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Bb- do you have any idea what the redeployment process is? What the process is to get out of the Army?

    If a Soldier wants help, it is there. But at no point do you step in front of a mind reader to see if you lie on every survey/interview.

    The process is to the point that many find it annoying. The biggest problem is you can hide a mental problem quite easily.

  12. frida: “.. he should NOT have been able to .. illegally have those weapons ..”

    You’re right, he should not have had weapons illegally, and if in fact he was not allowed by law to carry the firearms he had, it sort of proves my point that more firearm regulation or restriction wouldn’t have done a thing to stop the tragedy.

  13. Soundlife says:

    It is the responsibility of every citizen to train themselves in the safe use of firearms and to carry them. We have not, do not and never will have enough police officers to protect us from the evil that infects everyday life.
    Many people are quick to shirk their responsibilities and leave the lives and welfare of their families and themselves to the kindness of strangers who do take personal responsibility.
    For the many pansies who would disarm society and leave us all to the whims of gangs and thugs, I feel sorry for you.
    I do hope that someday you find sanctuary in a country that believes as you do, and finds protection from a country and people such as ourselves.

  14. cclngthr says:

    lanq,
    A .32 has a shorter range and less vilosity than a .45. Even then, with a person such as the shooter with automatic weapons, even the .45 would probably be no match due to the longer range of his weapons.

    I prefer to use a bullet which does more internal damage and spreads out that damage to a wider area than a smaller caliber bullet,.

  15. Publico says:

    Ban the sale and possession of any and all military style assault weapons that fire semi-automatically or that have the capability of being converted to full automatic. That is step one. Step two will be a ban on the sale or possession of any semi-auto weapon no matter the style.
    Step three will be the ban on all but single shot, breech loaded weapons.
    Then with step four we can all sit back and watch the homicide rate from guns fall to nearly nothing.
    Step five will happen right after step one when the gun nuts nearly drown in their tears.

  16. is it just me or does anyone else see a contradiction in wanting to support returning vets and referring to this one as a psycho whack job?

  17. ReadNLearn says:

    Insane, circular logic?

    Someone who doesn’t have a problem committing a murder is going to be stopped with a misdemeanor charge for firearms?

    Brilliant!

  18. ReadNLearn says:

    Out of curiosity, what sort of logic is involved in this individual, with his name and city posted, confirmed by the tribnet, proclaiming his aversion to firearms? Any home invasion type would figure this is an easy mark, without firearms.

    I don’t think the letter writer should be voicing any opinions regarding anything that involved thinking and making choices when he puts himself on front street so readily.

  19. cc, I was making a point. I don’t care if a guy’s sitting on top of an M1 tank, a well placed .22LR will render him incapable of returning fire. If I put someone down, it doesn’t really matter what either of us is carrying, does it?

    Many years ago, PCSO ok’d carrying auto-loaders. My team sergeant purchased a 1911, I opted for a Smith 459. He had a fine time mocking my “pea shooter”, (we were the only two at the time, this is back when you had to go buy your own) when I finally told him, tell you what, I’ll put my nine up to your forehead and pull the trigger, then you do the same to me with your .45, and we’ll see which one hurts worse, but I get to go first. :)

  20. read: “Out of curiosity, what sort of logic is involved in this individual, with his name and city posted, confirmed by the tribnet, proclaiming his aversion to firearms”

    A few years back, there were some anti-gun people handing out paraphernalia at the Seattle Center, and some pro-constitution people were there, also, handing out joke yard signs that read, “this is a gun-free residence”. I saw on the news a couple of women who approvingly took a couple of the signs. Can you imagine what their husbands thought when they got home? :)

  21. ReadNLearn says:

    Yeppers…The ‘gun free home’ poster giveaways are funny. Antigunners like to benefit from the potential safety provided by others having armed households, but they certainly don’t want to walk the walk, with the exception of this individual who boldly proclaims his aversion to firearms while providing a name in a rather small town.

    The tribnet should protect people who make silly choices from themselves and in this case, omit his last name and city.

  22. SCORPION says:

    bb makes an excellent point. The Iraq war vet had some known issues that were not resolved by those that knew of them. Sadly this is a known issue and documented.

    “The problem isn’t confined to Lewis-McChord. In a paper for the Army War College last year (.pdf), Army Col. Ricardo M. Love reported that “veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at an alarming rate.”

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120103_PTSD_Army_Paper.pdf

    The mother of Barnes’ young daugther sought a protection order that included allegations of PTSD. In those court papers it was documented that he had firearms.

    From the papers she stated:

    “I am fearful of what Benjamin is capable of with the small arsenal he has in his home and his recent threat of suicide.”

    Though the story is unfolding, there are a couple of documented issues that lead me to question whether Barnes was inviolation of existing laws concerning firearm possesion.

    At this point we don’t not know why he still had possesion of these weapons.

    There is a process to remove weapon from ones possesion. That protection order should have trigger an investigation. This may be a failure of the legal system to act properly and quickly to remove weapons from a person.

  23. LibertyBell says:

    Yes what a concept, lets ban guns in a park, after bringing back the wolves?

    any crazy whim, anywhere

    The 2nd Amendment “IS” Federal?

    Education, what a concept?

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/09/1102882/wolf-blamed-in-death-of-villager.html

  24. cclngthr says:

    lanq,
    A .22 does not have the vilosity or power to spread damage to surrounding tissue, nor push the bullet in far enough to do that damage. A person shot with a .22 would remain standing and in control longer than if shot by a .45.

    The .45 has more power, plus the bullet spreads to surrounding tissue at a rate that is much larger than the .22. Essentially, when shot with a .45, with more damage, less shooting is necessary to take down a person.

  25. muckibr says:

    cclngthr

    Any specific reason you don’t want to answer my questions of 2:39 PM?

  26. ReadNLearn says:

    This dude was given an other than honorable discharge. Too bad they didn’t give him a dishonorable discharge and then he’d not have been able to purchase firearms. Any individuals who claims PTSD shoudn’t be allowed to have firearms. They want that check from Uncle Sam that way, they should have the full ride.

  27. SCORPION says:

    One other ara that could have disqualified him was a filed “court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner’?

    It appears one was in progress. I am not sure how far along it got.

  28. sandblower says:

    Yet another gun nut who has “slipped through the cracks.”
    How many is enough?
    We need tough gun laws that are enforceable with adequate funding.
    They do not exist yet.

  29. SCORPION says:

    sandblower – What specific gun laws do you feel we need that do not currently exist?

    Do it relate to gun possesion? Gun ownership? Use of force issues? What specifically… or even generally. We can start form there.

  30. cc, really man, I’m not going to sit here and argue ballistics. I just don’t care if you’re a kid with a new bb gun or the armorer for LA County SO. The comment that I was replying to was frida’s contention that a .45 is no match for the firepower that this dude had, and I stand by the comment.

  31. “He is obviously a couch potato. Spend three days and nights on the Wonderland Trail system and you will be glad you are packing when you see so much cougar and bear sign on the trail and at campsites.”

    Well, Mr. Computercommando – I’ve spent thousands of hours along streams and highland lakes in the Cascades in Washington and Oregon and have not once been in contact with a bear or cougar. I saw a bear cross the road about 2 miles from my house and there have been numerous cougar sightings in my community.

    Point? – Want to scare away a bear or cougar? Most hikers I know carry a loud bell.

    I hope none of the sharpshooters in my neighborhood decide to shoot the wildlife. If their arms skills match their golf ability, I’ll have holes in my house.

    People that talk about shooting first, remind me of why Andy let Barney Fife only have one bullet and he had to carry it in his shirt pocket.

  32. SCORPION says:

    x6 – good for them, the bell… but what if that doesn’t work?

    Why would you think the gun owners in your neighborhood decide to shoot the wildlife. Is it a dnager to them and their families?

    Who is talking about shooting first? Under what conditions of a shoot first scanerio does a gun owner get to ‘shoot first’

  33. cclngthr says:

    lanq,
    It is going to take a weapon that has the ballistics to eliminate the person behind the weapons he had, particularly of his mindset, at a range equal to his weapons. An automatic capable weapon (as his were) fires more rounds you could fire with a .22 at a distance of those weapons.

    I say eliminate because that should be the intent.

  34. sandblower says:

    Interesting that some here talk only about outgunning someone else. How about not having to worry about that precise issue?

  35. alindasue says:

    ReadNLearn said, “Antigunners like to benefit from the potential safety provided by others having armed households…”

    Given that the number of accidental or self-inflicted gun deaths approaches the number of gun related homicides, I seriously question any “potential safety” provided to me by others having armed households.

    I’m not anti-gun. I have trained on and fired the .22 rifle we used to own. However, as useful a tool as a gun can be, I find the thought of my neighbor being “packed and ready” to be less than comforting.

  36. bobcat1a says:

    The “gun-free residence” signs were bait at a gun-owners house. He’s hoping still that an irony challenged burglar will try to break in.

  37. lanq? What is the purpose of the guns that this loser was photographed with all over the media? Why would someone want/ need to have one? We fingerprint and background check all public school employees, credit checks are run for people applying for a job, urine tests are done for some jobs, mental evaluations are also done for some jobs, AND YET people get up in arms (no pun intended) when it comes to performing any of these tests to legally posses a firearm! Had any of these things been a requirement, he wouldn’t have been able to legally posses a firearm PLUS the FACT he had a record of domestic violence AND his girlfriend stated he was making dangerous threats to himself and her, it absolutely would have made a difference had he been put in jail for these offenses and not be able to legally posses a firearm.

  38. And lanq? I could disable a perp with a tube sock and a bar of ivory soap. But a spray of bullets will do much more damage before the sock/soap hits the head. Are you suggesting that ALL civilians receive high level military combat training? Soundlife? It is most certainly NOT the responsibility of every citizen to train and own a firearm. That is why we have the police and military force. This is NOT Bonanza!

  39. Sorry that you refuse to “get it”. Likely just think it’s macho to scoff. I hope for your sake, though, that you don’t think by virtue of carrying a .45 you’ll be magically shielded from some unworthy .32 or .380 flying your way should the shtf. A well thrown rock to the forehead can off you.

  40. Soundlife says:

    Frida, I sure hope your family never has to discover that when you face a crisis in seconds, (home intruder, armed robbery, aggravated assault) the police are only minutes away.

  41. LibertyBell says:

    You people need to get out in the woods more often, never cry wolf, or call a Ranger either.

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/anatomy-alaska-bear-mauling-rescue?page=0,0

  42. beerBoy – some, but not all, Park Rangers are trained law enforcement officers.

    Frida – I refuse to refer to you as a citizen. That VETERN suffered from mental, physical, and emotional problems acquired in defending this

    Lanq – and the letter writer would be even more surprised at the number of un-licensed people who carry.

    SandBlower & Scorpion – gun laws
    I’m have to side with Scorpion on this one. The laws are on the books but are not being enforced.

  43. frida: “What is the purpose of the guns that this loser was photographed with all over the media? Why would someone want/ need to have one?”

    You don’t need a 2-iron. My neighbor doesn’t need an 8 cylinder pickup truck. I don’t need a big screen TV. Also, many people collect firearms for various reasons, not the least among those are their trade value.

    frida: “We fingerprint and background check all public school employees, credit checks are run for people applying for a job, urine tests are done for some jobs, mental evaluations are also done for some jobs, AND YET people get up in arms (no pun intended) when it comes to performing any of these tests to legally posses a firearm!”

    Would you want the same requirements for, say, freedom of speech? Fingerprints? mental evaluation? Something tells me that you’d not want to wander down that road, yet that’s what you’re asking we do with The Second Amendment. Should The First Amendment be more important than The Second? There are already many things which disqualify a person from owning or possessing firearms, but should we say, “you can’t own a gun because you _might_ go nuts with it”? Should I say, “you have no right to free speech, because you _might_ yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater?

  44. xring: “Lanq – and the letter writer would be even more surprised at the number of un-licensed people who carry.”

    Could be. So, do you want to make it illegal to illegally carry a gun?

  45. LibertyBell says:

    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
    Hitler, April 11 1942

  46. LibertyBell says:

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
    John F. Kennedy

  47. LibertyBell says:

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
    Thomas Jefferson,

  48. LibertyBell says:

    Having won every battle…the NRA, 1871 President Grant, early member, who specilaized in shooting democrats, for Abe Lincoln, just like George Washington, in case you must have attended a WEA funded school, less, Reality.

  49. LibertyBell says:

    Some People should move to the State of Washington,

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

  50. LibertyBell says:

    And the “fire in a crowded theater” writ, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes(R), shot three times by the Democratic Party, appointed by Teddy Roosevelt(R), who was almost as famous in the National Park System as U.S. Grant(R) Inventing the Worlds First National Park, Yellowstone 1872.

    The crowded theater, always confuses a Democrat.

  51. cclngthr says:

    lanq,
    Some people would want carrying a weapon to be illegal in any form/case. I carry because I choose to, whenever I feel it is appropriate. If I know I will be around people who I know does not want weapons around, for a valid reason, I might choose not to carry. If I’m with children, I generally do not carry a weapon.

    I have not carried it at work, because that is against federal law to do that because my workplace is considered a gun free zone (schools are), however on my own time, if I feel it is appropriate, I can carry.

  52. Rainhush says:

    @concernedtacoma7 …huh?
    @lanq and cclnthr – you two should not do the same “show and tell” party… or maybe you should.
    @truthbusterguy – careful, killing a cougar or bear in a NP… good luck in court. Bear spray, bells, pots and pans – they all work.
    @X6 – all that time, and you’ve never “been in contact” with a bear? Really? You mean never touched, or never seen? Cougar I understand – same here. But no bear experience? You must be really loud, smell really bad, or be doing something you should market to scared city boys. Andy and Barney… that’s hilarious! With ya there!
    @sozo – the most meaningful post, thank you. 
    @ all you law bickering spin masters – Barnes went to a party, shot people, drove to Rainier, and in good conscience and out respect for the law would have turned around at the park entrance if a law said no guns allowed? Yeah, right!
    And lastly: He who knows not what lurks within, lurks without. – Dave Milby

  53. X6- LOVE the Andy and Barney reference. SO right on and covers just about every “legal” gun owner that I know. Half of them couldn’t hit the ground after falling out of a tree, let alone respond quickly when meeting wildlife. They would probably shoot themselves in the process. Cougar and Bear shy away from human noise and smells. They know that: 1. we are to dumb and dangerous to get close enough, and 2: we make a lousy meal when rumaging in our garbage is much easier. We’ve encroached further into their usual grounds and they know us well.
    I had enough soldiers serve under me to know that help for ANY problem is available. It was when I was in 30 years ago and has gotten better. Do some fall through the cracks? Hell yes. Are soldiers now are well trained and equipped> Are therw some that should be cut loose? Sure. But I am grateful that they do the job they do and thankful for their service. It’s a job that not many could do.
    Finally, I have studied Thomas Jefferson for a lot of years and am a great admirer. That being said, If he had ANY knowledge of foresight as to the type and number of weapons that are available today, and the manner in which the 2d Amendment has been ruled upon by the courts, I am sure beyond a doubt they he would have deleted the entire section, as we have stretched and twisted his words well beyond recognition.
    Go quietly into that good night, citizens. Be thankful for those that protect us and keep us free. And say a word or two to your God for the family of the young public servant that was just doing her job.

  54. SafewayOrangeSoda says:

    Anyone here who thinks a bear waking up hungry from hibernation is going to be chased off by a bell ain’t never heard of Timothy Treadwell.

    Look him up.

    He’s the epitome of what happens when a liberal goes out into the woods to hug bears. Ya end up inside the bear.

  55. Objective says:

    Publico states-Ban the sale and possession of any and all military style assault weapons that fire semi-automatically or that have the capability of being converted to full automatic. That is step one. Step two will be a ban on the sale or possession of any semi-auto weapon no matter the style. Step three will be the ban on all but single shot, breech loaded weapons. Then with step four we can all sit back and watch the homicide rate from guns fall to nearly nothing. Step five will happen right after step one when the gun nuts nearly drown in their tears.

    You may want to do some research especially with step 4. Second you can pass all the laws you want, who will they effect? The criminals or those who abide by laws? Who are the ones to go out and enforce them? Would you be one willing to go door to door to confiscate guns? Besides, the day cops feel the need to no longer carry guns, I will give up mine.

  56. SCORPION says:

    xring – I wouldn’t say they are not enforced, they are on the books for a reason. What you can’t do, will never be able to do, is to stop a person from committing a crime. It is impossible. For all those that advocate for yet another law, Barnes knowingly violated three that were already on the books.

    We do perform background checks for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. There are 13 disqualifying items that can prevent a firearm purchase Frida. What documented fact are you are referring to related to Barnes? He had a compliant made against him, do you KNOW whether a court order was issued? Do you know whether, because of the complaint, a process was started to remove firearms from his possession?

    Frida – I appreciate your confidence in our members of law enforcement and the military, but the police are under no obligation to individually protect you. The military cannot prevent nor stop an act of aggression against the United States.

  57. SCORPION says:

    “is it just me or does anyone else see a contradiction in wanting to support returning vets and referring to this one as a psycho whack job?”

    I had to think about this apparent contradiction. I think we can all support veterans, provide the necessary support and tools to adjust back to society from a war zone.

    At the same time I see no contradiction condemning the behavior of this specific individual who, despite support and tools available to him, decided to commit acts of violence.

    Now, we can debate the effectiveness of the support and tools available. As they, in this case, were not effective(? – not sure if that is the right word.)

    One question that comes to mind is whether the powers that be on Lewis-McChord are doing a self-evaluation of their programs to determine if they could have realistically done more to assist Barnes. And where the line is now to compel a soldier to seek assistance.

  58. lamofred says:

    The man was not a “John Wayne wanta be.” He was a highly trained killer and every American tax-payer is responsible for creating him. He is us.

  59. beerBoy says:

    Bears and cougars are the reason why folks bring pistols into the Park?…..c’mon now….be honest folks. The scariest animals in the Park are the other humans.

    btw – I don’t carry firearms, bells or bear spray. But I do make a lot of noise on the trail in areas where there are heavily traveled by bear and make sure I pay attention to scat and other sign. Having a gun, or spray, or wearing little tinker bells might help but, if you are oblivious and arrogant you still can get yourself into trouble.

  60. beerBoy says:

    SafewaySoda…get your facts straight, the bear that ate Timothy Treadwell wasn’t waking up from hibernation – he was desperately trying to find food PRIOR to hibernation.

    And – any idiot who deliberately puts himself into extremely close contact with bears like Treadwell did – is an arrogant fool who, even with an arsenal of weapons, would eventually get chomped on.

    Not sure how his actions were “liberal” in your eyes. He was attempting to create fame through his “bear man” videos in a deluded quest for personal enrichment.

  61. amJames says:

    “Stand up ChucK” ! The lack of a law restricting guns in parks had nothing to do with this murder and you know it. It appears the killer was already violating several laws.

    Lamo, “highly trained killer”? … well, no. His m.o.s. (according to this newspaper) was in communication. You fail.

  62. lanq? Nice red herring, now… answer the question. Let me help narrow it down for you logically and concisely, the loser was discharged from the army for being whacko, he had domestic violence issues and made current death threats (situation was being investigated) and had a record. You want to hand THIS mentally unstable violent candidate a cachet of semi and automatic weapons without restraint or question?

  63. Safeway? The current loser with his cachet of weapons was found in a ditch wearing one shoe and a light layer of clothing. His guns did him a lot of good against the elements. Lamo? He was whacked out before he joined the military. We didn’t create him, the military allowed a whacko to serve.

  64. amJames says:

    “Stand up Chuck”, you knocked down the strawman. The murderer was already violating several laws. Outlawing guns in the park would have had ZERO affect.
    ………..
    Lamo, “highly trained killer”??? Well, no. His m.o.s. had to do with communication, according to this paper. Fail.

  65. SafewayOrangeSoda says:

    Frida- your argument is neither here nor there.
    You can’t shoot a river.
    Well, I mean, you can, but it’s not like it’s going to HURT the river. Maybe it’ll annoy a river spirit or something like that, but it’s not going to physically harm the river. Well, unless you shoot a big rock or something which blocks the river, but that’ll just make the river go somewhere else; I don’t know if that counts as harming it or not.
    The argument is that you can’t shoot a bear with a bell, not whether this idiot was insane. He was. He deserves no sympathy, and it’s good that he died in that river. I don’t know if he tried to shoot it or not.

  66. SCORPION says:

    Frida – what we have is the newspaper accounts of Barnes. I see a reference to a request from his former girlfriend but do not know the status of that request, do you? What specific charges and/or convistions are you referring to?

    second – automatic… STOP, he did not possess any automatic weapons. It requires further investigation and permiting beyond the state level.

    third – he was discharge for behavior issues not mental issues. It does make a difference. It appears related to a drunk driving charge and an improper transport of a gun on a military base. At this point, we don’t know whether he was mentally ill and if so what was the treatment or status of treatment.

    Get your facts straight…

  67. SCORPION says:

    bb – good for you and your choices to not carry anything. I respect your choices.

    I also respect the choices of those that choose to carry.

    I will agree that being aware of your surroundings will help regardless of whether you are armed with deterrents or not.

    Darwin comes to mind, expecially on their turf…

  68. LibertyBell says:

    Bring your Bell to any National Park, where every once in a while, stupidity means dinner bell.

    http://www.katmaialaskabearviewing.com/?gclid=CMPJ1K7Stq0CFaQbQgodiwFQnw

    Or go visit Naknek where that 375 H&H, to 458 Winchester Mag, is the prefered local weapon of choice.

    Keep and Bear, means Own and Carry.

  69. LibertyBell says:

    Reasearch those Bears, without a clue, and your dinner bell could get rung too?

    http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_815.htm

  70. beerBoy says:

    SOS – why so hysterical in your response to me?

    The reason why I wouldn’t knowingly put myself at risk by “run(ning) out into a group of hungry bears” with a bell, pepper spray, or a whole bunch of big-o guns is that I, unlike Treadwell, am not hubristic.

    And, unlike you apparently, I know that no amount of weapons will put an S on my chest and a cape on my back. Being stupid in the back country can get you killed whether you have a gun or not.

  71. beerBoy says:

    In spite of the large grizzly and black bear population in Yellowstone, the deadliest animal there is the bison – I think this is due to idiots not taking them seriously as a danger.

    In Glacier I could always tell when I was getting close to the road as the number of people with bells and spray got much higher – most of the folks who get geared up there never get more than a half mile from their cars.

    I love the signs in Zion that show a guy’s bloody hand – he got attacked by a squirrel.

    Having a gun might make you feel safer but, unless you demonstrate some real respect for the WILD life, you are still putting yourself at risk.

  72. LibertyBell says:

    And bB,
    In spite of the large white black and brown population in Tacoma, the deadliest animal is the Police Chief-I think this is due to idiots not taking them seriously as a danger.

    Just go ask the former Chiefs wife? Oh! That’s right insanity and circular logic from Steilacoom, WHAT A CONCEPT!

  73. LibertyBell says:

    “The facility was established in Washington Territory as Fort Steilacoom Asylum in 1871″

    One Year Later, a National Park was invented.

  74. LibertyBell says:

    What’s the matter X6, how did that gun toting lunatic make Tacoma Police Chief? A lovely day for target practice in that Gig Harbor parking lot.

    The NRA, a Civil War, President Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant.the Steilcoom Asylum, right here in the 4th Corner, where the Dunce Cap is supreme.

    The wallpaper patrol, wher facts are always fiction, (D)emocracy Now!

  75. gonefishin69690 says:

    Anti gun nuts. Hmmm. Yeah, making firearms illegal will fix everything. After all, meth is illegal and we don’t have any problems with that now do we?

  76. LibertyBell says:

    Life Liberty and the Pursuit, where Hunting for a Republic, truly should not confuse “any person” in a State named after His Excellency.

  77. LibertyBell says:

    And Coke adds Life!

    It is commonly said, that three things be favoured in law; life, liberty, and dower. Section 124b.

  78. lamofred, please. Feel free to take responsibility for “creating” this man with your tax dollars, but don’t project your guilt-driven world view on the rest of us.

    This man was not part of the “norm” — he was ABnormal. He did not last in the military, and he was bound to behave violently probably, no matter what his situation.

    I don’t know how many career military folks you have known, but I’m so weary of the presumption that they are hawkish and violent people. They DO have their eyes and ears open, though, and realize, sad as it may be, that evil must be checked–and sometimes it’s going to take a weapon to get the job done.

  79. slugoxyz says:

    I believe in Americans’ right to bear arms and the reason this right is not archaic is that criminals don’t obey laws. In a perfect world, there are no guns and then, even the cops don’t have a great need for guns. Alas, there are lots of guns in America. There are three kinds of people in this world. There are wolves, sheep and dogs. Naturally, the wolves prey on the sheep because the sheep have little means or inclination to defend themselves. The dogs stand between the wolves and the sheep. Dogs come in the form of police and other law enforcement but they also come in the form of the responsible and trained, legal gun owner. If you hate guns, then you should not own one but then you should applaud those that are prepared to stand between you and the wolves. Don’t vilify the very people who have the wherewithal and ability to defend you from the predators that would prey on you simply because they want what you have or they are having a bad day. The sad and tragic death of Ranger Anderson was an ambush. The type of weapon is somewhat moot. She never had a chance to draw hers and this determined killer would have killed her with a .22. This killer didn’t have automatic weapons. He had a semi-AR. Yes, a military style rifle. But all rifles are loosely based on a military application. Rifles were not advanced for hunting. War brought upon the advent from rocks, to spears, to long bows, to muskets to rifles. To think that a ban on guns would solve the problem is simplistic. You’ll have to ban war too. Good luck with that. Any law only takes guns out of the hands of legal gun owners (taking the means to defend the sheep away from the dogs). When you can devise a way to systematically remove all guns from the planet, let me know. Until then, eat the grass, do what sheep do and leave us dogs to do what we do. Assuring that bad things happen to bad people. Oh yeah… and while grazing, don’t look up to complain about how the dogs are protecting you. It’s annoying.

  80. slugo – please use your return key between paragraphs on long posts. Thanks.

  81. aislander says:

    sozo: I don’t know if you purposely addressed this guy as “lamofred” as a sly dig or if you truly thought it was F.Lamo, but, either way, it fits. Lefties DO seem to be interchangeable due their orthodoxy….

    And, Frida, although I appreciate that you believe that firearms have a certain cachet, this is hardly the thread in which to express that opinion. But seriously, Frida, what are the odds that the police will be on-scene at precisely the time you need them to save your life and property? Oh, they’ll be there all right, but only to clean up the mess AFTER you’ve been victimized…

  82. BlaineCGarver says:

    The existing law (which made it illegal for the killer to have guns) did not work, please explain why taking away my constitutional and God Given right to bear arms should be taken away? A few good men with nads could have helped, and if the Ranger had not been in condition white, she might have seen it coming.

  83. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Bb- have you ever asked menopause to do the same thing?

  84. slugoxyz says:

    bB? Really? That’s your best shot. I expected a little more… ho hum.

  85. aislander says:

    One would believe, based on outcomes, that the main problem the left wants to solve is that of too much freedom.

    Every solution the left proposes and, regrettably, often imposes, requires the surrender of some degree of freedom.

    The breathtaking rate of failure of liberal nostrums in every realm, from economics to social policy to education, including even the area of environmental regulation that lefties view as their exclusive, conquered territory, makes these losses of freedom even more bitter…

  86. muckibr says:

    slugoxyz 1/4/12 10:52 AM wrote: “The sad and tragic death of Ranger Anderson was an ambush. The type of weapon is somewhat moot. She never had a chance to draw hers and this determined killer would have killed her with a .22.”

    No it was NOT an ambush. It was a roadblock, and Ranger Anderson never got out of her car.

    The type of weapon was not moot, because it had to have the power to pierce the metal and glass of the car that Ranger Camiccia’s car was in, and presumably also through the car Ranger Anderson was not able to get out of when she was shot and killed.

    I read the TNT articles, and thought for sure I had the story right, but then I read this by slugoxyz and so went to another news sources to confirm.

    TNT article: “Barnes made a U-turn, jumped out of the car and opened fire. He shot through Camiccia’s windshield and through the door of Anderson’s vehicle, Bacher said. Anderson never made it out of her vehicle, he said.”

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/02/1967042/body-of-suspect-found-on-mount.html#storylink=cpy

    Seattle PI article: “Sgt. Cindi West, King County Sheriff’s spokesperson, said late Sunday that Barnes was connected to an early-morning shooting at a New Year’s house party in Skyway, Wash., south of Seattle that left four people injured, two critically.”

    “At Mount Rainier around 10:20 a.m. Sunday, Bacher said the gunman had sped past a checkpoint. One ranger began following him while Anderson eventually blocked the road to stop the driver.
    Before fleeing, the gunman fired shots at both Anderson and the ranger that trailed him, but only Anderson was hit, Bacher said.”

    Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Park-ranger-fatally-shot-near-Mt-Rainier-2435973.php#ixzz1iWiNyrUO

    It helps to get the FACTS correct, instead of making uniformed comments.

  87. SadujTogracse says:

    I’m sure glad Sarah McKinley was able to keep her baby safe by having access to firearms on New Year’s Eve. Otherwise she and her infant wouldn’t be alive today. http://news.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-911-operators-okay-091106413.html

  88. slugoxyz says:

    Muckibr – I was making a point. Clearly one that you missed. Ranger Anderson was unaware of what she was up against. So when the gunman did his U-Turn and jumped out with a rifle, it was a relatively unexpected action (i.e. ambush) for a guy being followed for failure to chain up. When it comes to passing through a windshield, it’s all about velocity. If the first .22 shatters the glass, then everything after that is going through. Thanks for your theory of ballistics. Talk about uninformed…(or as you wrote “uniformed”).

    My point was that it didn’t take a military style, (magazine fed) rifle to pass through the glass. You mention the connection between the Skyway shooting and attempting to stop the gunman. They weren’t stopping a suspected gunman. They were stopping a guy who failed to stop at the “chain up” area. So, his actions were a surprise.

    I’ll start a new paragraph for bB. Duckibr, my point was about banning guns. You chose to focus on the ballistics of a .22? You want to argue semantics on the word “ambush”. You clearly missed the point. Try to focus now.

  89. amJames says:

    lamo says “He was a highly trained killer” Yea… those signal m.o.s.’s sure put out some trained killers. LMAO.

  90. ItalianSpring says:

    Right on Sadu- No lib will come close to understanding the beautiful simplicity of your example.

  91. ItalianSpring says:

    I encourage all libs to sell their guns and get valuable Obomba bucks to buy medical marijuana with. Remember to blaze some doobies on Monday November 5th this year.

  92. muckibr says:

    Yo slugo… Did I call you names? Did I call out your spelling, grammar, punctuation errors? You seem to miss the point of these blogs. They are to exchange views on the issues. These are not so you can launch personal attacks against people who catch you putting out bad information that you are too proud or embarrassed to admit when you may have been in error, so you lash out with invective.

    A. Just admit that when you are wrong you are wrong. It was not an ambush. Okay? Admit that.

    B. The matter of .22 cal versus higher calibers could be a matter of opinion, but don’t assume I know nothing about weapons. I served 7 years in the U.S. Army, and therefore I am a trained killer by virtue if that fact alone. I qualified EXPERT with M-16, M-60, M-79. I was also an Armed Security Officer for the U.S. Department of State in D.C. and carried a .38 revolver with 5 live rounds, not 6 because we left the hammer chamber empty for safety.

    C. Have YOU ever held a job where YOU were required to carry a firearm with live ammo?

  93. muckibr says:

    D. I forgot to mention I also qualified EXPERT on the .45 cal semi-auto for the Army, and .38 cal revolver for GSA.

  94. SCORPION says:

    21 minutes – she was on the phone with dispatchers awaiting for the police to arrive.

    For those of you that think police are there to protect you this is one of hundreds of stories where the victim waited. Thankfully she had a means to protect herself and her baby.

  95. SCORPION says:

    “C. Have YOU ever held a job where YOU were required to carry a firearm with live ammo?

    can I play? the answer is yes. and a round was in the chamber ready to go.

  96. keepinitreal says:

    Is the letter writer really implying that had guns been outlawed in the park this murder wouldn’t have happened?

  97. keepinitreal says:

    Someone upthread said the murderer was “a highly trained killer”. From what I read, his military occupational skill was communication (like radio). They are NOT “highly trained killers”.

  98. keepinitreal says:

    Since simple minds believe outlawing guns would have made a difference, perhaps we should outlaw murder.

  99. keepinitreal says:

    Bells
    I can’t help but laugh seeing an image of a bunch of tender hearted, well meaning folk running around in a wildlife refuge wearing a dinner bell.

  100. muck: “.. and carried a .38 revolver with 5 live rounds, not 6 because we left the hammer chamber empty for safety.”

    Nothing personal, but your shop had a really ignorant policy, if that was the case.

  101. Lanq,
    I leave it to politicians to make stupid laws.
    And to the protect and serve group to enforce them.

    Scorpion,
    Background checks – Not if you buy online or at a gun show.
    “DUI and a gun violation’ – somewhat thin for a discharge.

  102. wallpaper

  103. xring, online purchases require shipment to an FFL, which then require background checks. The only local gun shows are the Puyallup and Monroe shows, which require membership to the WAC to actually purchase a firearm, and the WAC does background checks. In addition, dealers within the show are required by law to perform a background check at the time of purchase. Virtually all gun shows are like this anymore.

  104. Since we are doing anecdotes about use of a gun:

    (AP) An off-duty police officer in Connecticut shot and critically wounded his 18-year-old daughter, apparently mistaking her for an intruder after she sneaked out of their home and re-entered through the basement.

  105. Awesome dialogue. I think its unanimous. If we just pass a new law making murder illegal, that should solve the problem. Maybe we can post signs outside the park saying you aren’t supposed to murder people? Thank you to all the US loving, legal carrying patriots. It is up to us to defend ourselves, and the sheep around us from the wolves. It will be an honor if I ever have to save you or your children with my concealed weapon.

    Like it’s been said, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

  106. keepinitreal says:

    LOL.

  107. Rainhush says:

    Fort Steilacoom was decommissioned as a military post in 1868. And bells do make random announcements… and ultimately fail to serve any purpose? Better to just blast away in confrontations? 
    Blast this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPzzRM2ytq8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  108. muckibr says:

    lanq, nothing personal, but my shop’s policy (SOP) was drafted by reps from Virginia and Maryland state police, Capital Police, GSA, DoD, FBI and Secret Service. You can take it up with them if you feel you know more and better about gun safety than they do,

  109. “It will be an honor if I ever have to save you or your children with my concealed weapon.”

    Just don’t do a Plaxico Burress

  110. SadujTogracse says:

    Poor X6 still using the same old stories from 2007. How is Kard these days?

  111. muck, nothing personal, but apparently, I do know more about gun safety than they do. Kind of a bummer that the federal government thought you guys were so inept that you might take out your gun and pound the hammer pull on a rock or something. This is assuming that your service was 60 or 70 years ago, when hammers actually had a spur on them, as opposed to the transfer bar system that revolvers have had since then.

  112. SCORPION says:

    muckibr – part of any standard operating policies and procedures development is an anlysis of the target audience as well as associated training necessary.

    They probably considered who was required to carry a weapon and decided that an empty chamber was the best policy…

    ;)

  113. muckibr says:

    SCORPION your comment makes perfect sense and is quite logical, whereas lanq still maintains his ever present know-it-all I’m-smarter-than-everyone-else position on this and every comment he makes. I find that kind of attitude really tiring, don’t you?

  114. SCORPION says:

    ‘…perfect sense and quite logical…’

    really… well, umm, thank you… ;)

  115. SCORPION says:

    as far as lanq is concerned… his comment is actually correct. Their has been quite an evolution in firearm safety and the mechanics behind firearm safety.

    Darwin still applies as Plaxico Burris found out.

  116. scooter6139 says:

    Blaine – Did you actually just say your God given right to bear arms? Seriously? I can’t wait for the bible passage to support that one.

    Just because someone is attempting to break into your house does not give one carte blanche to shoot and kill. Only in backwards Texas is that legal. In the state of Washington you can only shoot to kill if you or someone else is in imminent danger of death. Best thing to do if someone is breaking into your home is to retreat to a defensive position (like the bedroom as in the yahoo article) with any family and call 911. If the intruder attempts to enter the defensive position then announce you have contacted the police and that you are armed and will shoot if they attempt to enter (I know police officers who argue whether it’s good or bad to make this announcement before at the first sign of a home invasion). Your valuables are not worth the life of the intruder. Any armed commando wanna-be that goes after the intruder in the hopes of a confrontation is an idiot and deserves the punishment they get, which in this state includes many years for homicide.

  117. Awesome! I think muck missed the circular logic there Scorpion…. :). Once he thinks about somebodys Barney Fife comment earlier in the link he might realize the way others interpreted your comment.

    And yes X6, people should not be so moronic as Plaxico Burress. Of course, he was carrying illegally; most individuals with concealed weapons permits realize that there are basic gun safety rules that must be followed to carry safely in public. Lots of wannabe gangbangers just want to feel cool carrying. They are the ones that turn their guns to the side “ghetto style” if and when you ever see them at the range…

  118. scooter6139 says:

    Oh, and BTW, I support personal possession of legal firearms.

  119. Scooter, your comment is factually incorrect. You can also use lethal force if you are in imminent fear of your or others physical safety. If its dark, and you thought you saw the intruder pulling a weapon, you have the legal right to fire. If they advance on you without a weapon, you have a right to defend yourself. Very few people actually WANT to kill an intruder. But there is a significant difference between not wanting to kill someone and not hesitating if the situation warrants it.

  120. muckibr says:

    Are you serious SCORPION? When lanq writes, “nothing personal, but apparently, I do know more about gun safety than they do.”

    Do YOU really believe he knows MORE about gun safety that the police departments of Maryland, Virginia, D.C., plus the security division of the GSA, the FBI and the Secret Service? Do you HONESTLY believe that lanq is “correct” when he writes he knows more than they do?

    Please!

  121. aislander says:

    So…scooter6139…are you actually saying that the Bible asserts we don’t have a right to self defense?

    Luke 11:21: When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe…

    …and there are dozens of other passages, in both the old and new testaments, that support a God-given right to bear arms…and to use them.

  122. SCORPION says:

    First muckibr you cherried picked the comment. Question who is lanq in real life?

    OK – I didn’t think you knew… neither do I so the content of the comment leads me to believe that he does know about the nuances of firearm safety. Knowing about ‘spurs’ and ‘hammers’ as they relate to firearms is not normally casual conversation.

    As far as the cherry picked FBI, et all… Do you realize the number of non-government consultants they use to develop firearm operation and safety protocol. There is a large civilian firearm instructor base that instructors government.

    The government is not the know all, be all that some may think it is.

    I know it is just one incident (there are others) but the DEA agent in front of a school class with a loaded weapon, something about ‘the only one authorized’ and then proceeds to shoot himself in the leg. Crossed my mind for some reason…

  123. SCORPION says:

    Thank you TMell, I was going for subtle and then realized that I may had gone too subtle…

    I expect some fury in a bit. It’s his nature…

  124. “Of course, he was carrying illegally”

    Only made possible by FIREARM LAWS. The law that Burress broke is wailed on by the pro-gun people at all times.

  125. SCORPION, go back up the thread and you will see that it was lanq who first cherry-picked the comment I made out of context. He took it out of my 1/4/12 6:09 PM post last part of item B.

    Be honest SCORPION. Or at least try to be.

  126. BTW, to further clarify, lanq cherry-picked the comment out of a response I had given to slugoxyz. Why lanq decided to attack me on that issue I don’t know, because he was not part of that discussion.

    lanq is the ONLY cherry-picker on this issue. Not me. You know it too, but will you admit the truth?

  127. SadujTogracse says:

    Well at least “X6″ is coming up with some new material! That 2007 story along with the Barney Fife and 1 bullet analogy were getting sooooo old!

  128. muckibr says:

    2nd Amendment Rights in the News TODAY – January 5 2012

    Authorities don’t plan to file charges against an 18-year-old Oklahoma widow who fatally shot a New Year’s Eve intruder at her house while she had a 911 dispatcher on the phone.

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9968356-no-charges-for-teen-widow-who-killed-intruder

  129. muckibr says:

    2nd Amendment Rights in the News TODAY – January 5 2012

    Pierce County Sheriff’s Department said one person is dead after a drug-related shooting in Puyallup early Thursday.

    http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Man-killed-in-drug-related-shooting-in-Puyallup-136732083.html

  130. muckibr says:

    2nd Amendment Rights in the News TODAY – January 5 2012

    Police say they have received death threats since fatally shooting a South Texas 8th-grade student who was carrying what appeared to be a weapon, but turned out to be a pellet gun.

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9978619-texas-police-receive-death-threats-after-shooting-teen

  131. muckibr says:

    2nd Amendment Rights in the News TODAY – January 5 2012

    John Robert Reeves, 25, shot himself in the head, and the three others with him were murdered, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department said, citing autopsy results. Fellow Navy pilot David Reis, also 25, was killed by a gunshot wound to the torso, and his 24-year-old sister, Karen, suffered a gunshot wound to the head and chest, officials said. Matthew Saturley, 31, of suburban Chula Vista, was shot multiple times.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45884312/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TwYRApgXg8M

  132. keepinitreal says:

    Not to pile on poor little scooter, BUT, google castle doctrine. Re-read your post where you claim “Just because someone is attempting to break into your house does not give one carte blanche to shoot and kill. Only in backwards Texas is that legal.” Then get back to us.

  133. keepinitreal says:

    aislander, thanks for > Luke 11:21: When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe… :)

  134. muckibr says:

    2nd Amendment Rights in the News TODAY – January 5 2012

    (CNN) — Utah law enforcement officers mourned one of their own Thursday after a shooting left one officer killed and five others wounded.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/justice/utah-officers-shot/index.html?hpt=us_c2

  135. keepinitreal says:

    So, how would banning guns in National Parks have made a difference in the cases you cited muckibr ?

  136. Scorp,
    Buying on line requires the services of a FFL only if you buy from a FFL in another state. “Private Sells” require no background checks, and are shipped thru Fed Ex or UPS direct from the seller to the buyer.
    Background checks at gun shows – Ever hear of the GunShowLoopHole? –most gun shows do not follow the rules.

    Keepinitreal – castle doctrine or not, In Oregon a property owner who shots an intruder had best be able to prove the he (property owner) could not have gotten away by exiting his property.

  137. muckibr says:

    from: The Living Bible (Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton Illinois) (Coverdale House Publishers LTD, London, England) 41st printing March 1974

    Luke 11:21-22

    21 “For when Satan, strong and fully armed, guards his palace, it is safe — 22 “until someone stronger and better-armed attacks and overcomes him and strips him of his weapons and carries off his belongings.”

    NOTE: When you take the single verse Luke 11:21 “out of context” it seems like a pretty good defense for the right to keep and use weapons. But, when you put it back into the context of The Bible, Jesus was talking in this Chapter about casting out demons and Satan. When He says “until someone stronger and better-armed attacks” Jesus is talking about God defeating Satan.

    Y’all need to go back to Bible Study Class!

  138. beerBoy says:

    seriously aislander? you are citing an out of context quote from the Bible as evidence that the 2nd Amendment comes from God?!!???

    If that was the case, wouldn’t the wording for the 2nd Amendment say something more along the line of “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Come to think of it, “When a strong man…” It seems like God is supporting the right to inject steroids every bit as much as he is supporting the right to buy guns and ammo.

  139. muckibr says:

    aislander or keepinitreal, please post your next Bible passage that supports the “God-Given Right to keep and bear arms” if you would please.

  140. slugoxyz says:

    Muck. Sorry it took me so long. I didn’t realize I called you a name. I said you were uninformed, I asked you to focus because you missed the point but I didn’t call you what everyone on this blog thinks of you. I find you a little amusing and not especially competent. But that (like you said) is just my opinion. I served for 20+ years (US Army) where I carried locked and loaded (one in the chamber) on more occasions than I care to remember (down range or “in the box”). Clearly, I have never served in a position where I carried a wheel gun but I’m less than a century old too. I owned a revolver once. It held 6 and if I could have found another cylinder, I would have put 7 in there. The very notion of carrying 5 rounds in a 6 gun… well everyone else said it. Scary policy. Since you asked…I carry, now (HK), with one in the chamber (on safe of course). I’m not sure what that has to do with our discussion unless you were still questioning my knowledge of ballistics. I would write more but enough people pointed out your errors so I really don’t have to. Thanks everyone.

  141. muckibr says:

    slugoxyz, deflect all you want to. You claimed there was an “ambush” that killed the park ranger.

    If you really had 20 years in the military you would know that an ambush is this:

    ambush = a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position

    There was NO ambush in that situation, and I called you out on it. You just don’t have the integrity to admit that you were wrong, so try to slander me on any other issue you want to. But if you won’t admit you were wrong about the ambush, then at least admit you have no personal integrity.

  142. muckibr says:

    2nd Amendment Rights in the News TODAY – January 5 2012

    EVERETT — Prosecutors have charged an Everett woman with second-degree manslaughter in connection with the shooting death of her husband, Quinton Blatchford.

    http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120105/NEWS01/701059832

  143. SCORPION says:

    muckibr – you responded to me about my comment and then proceeded to tell me of you issue with lanq. His comment was (and still is ) correct, you assumed / cherry picked I was referring to the FBI, et all…. How the heck do I know? I don’t know who he works for.

    You got as beef with lanq, go for it muckibr, don’t take no beef from him… take that revolver with the one empty chamber to a verbal ‘gun fight’

    I’ll get me some popcorn, no drinking though… (at least not yet). ;)

  144. SCORPION says:

    by the way muckibr – a few of your post with links are not second amendment rights issues… do you know that or just a little pissy about that 6 shooter thingy… well, 5 shooter in your case?

  145. SCORPION says:

    “When He says “until someone stronger and better-armed attacks” Jesus is talking about God defeating Satan.”

    really muckibr, that is disappointing… realy disappointing.

    All this time I though Jesus was talking about the United States Marines.

  146. aislander says:

    Mark 3:27: But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.

    So…I think I know who would bind us so we can’t defend ourselves.

  147. muckibr says:

    Again I quote directly and verbatim from: The Living Bible (Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton Illinois) (Coverdale House Publishers LTD, London, England) 41st printing March 1974

    Mark 3:27

    27″[Satan must be bound before his demons are cast out], just as a strong man must be tied up before his house can be ransacked and his property robbed.”

    So, tell me, who WOULD bind YOU islander? You say you know.

  148. keepinitreal says:

    IMO, anyone illegally trying to enter my home, steal my possesions, or harm my family is evil, and therefore of satan.
    Seems like your intentionally trying to stay off topic, “deflecting” as someone else stated earlier.

    On to another point, according to descriptions of the incident, the Ranger had no indication the man was armed and she was still sitting in her car when he shot her. Certainly, we could pick nits whether or not it was technically an ambush.

    So the question is still on the table, how would banning guns in National Parks have made a difference in this case or any of the cases you cited, muckibr ?

  149. muckibr says:

    1/5/2012 9:46 AM aislander wrote: “…and there are dozens of other passages, in both the old and new testaments, that support a God-given right to bear arms…and to use them.”

    Still waiting to see you post any one of those dozens aislander!

  150. http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fnews-26797925%252Foklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html

    Muck already posted it, but an 18 year old mother just used a 12 gauge to protect herself and her infant in Oklahoma. Two armed intruders kicked in her doors. Its all on a 911 recording. Nope she wasn’t raped and murdered; she was able to responsibly depend herself and her child!

  151. aislander says:

    beerBoy: The Founders believed the right of self defense to be a God-given right. If life is an unalienable, inherent right, so is the right to protect life.

    John Adams wrote: “All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

    I believe that last sentence is a restatement, and that “safety” equates to life and “happiness” equates to property…

  152. Luke 22:36-38
    Exodus 22:2-3
    Nehemiah 4: 17-18

    There are a couple you cannot refute.

  153. SadujTogracse says:

    This is the first day I’ve posted in here in months, but now I’m “obsessed”. LMAO, that’s rich!

  154. TMell, you can have Exodus and Nehemiah. In fact, you can have the entire Old Testament. There was a whole lotta’ killin’ goin’ on in the OT with God killin’ Pharaoh’s kid and the other Egyptian first-borns to back-up Moses, Joshua at the Battle of Jericho, David killin’ Goliath, and then David killin’ many of his own people so he could become King.

    But, you are wrong about Luke 22. Read the whole thing TMell, not just the parts you like. Yes, Jesus told His guys (the Apostles) to get their swords, and if they didn’t have any to sell some stuff and buy a sword. That was just after they’d had communion at The Last Supper.

    Jesus was testing them!!!

    After they went out into the Garden of Gethsemene to wait for the High Priest, and his soldiers, servants, and the rest of the angry mob to come arrest Him, Jesus let His guys in on the test.

    When the mob arrived Peter drew his sword and cut off the right ear of one of the servants (Malchus). Jesus touched the servant, healed his ear, and then scolded Peter telling him to put his sword away.

    Jesus then went on to berate Peter, reminding him that he had been there in the temple when Jesus was teaching, he was there among the throngs of people when Jesus was teaching, he walked with Jesus on the long treks of teaching his flock, so Peter should have learned that this was not how Jesus expected his followers to behave.

    In Luke 22:54 and John 18:12 Jesus gave Himself up to the Temple police and the mob without a fight, and He forbade His Apostles to fight for Him with the two swords they had.

    In Matthew 26:52 Jesus even goes further, after telling His Apostle to put away his sword He admonishes him by saying those who use sword will be killed. “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Sound familiar?

    You can’t just pull a passage or two ‘out of context’ from The Bible to justify your position. You must read the entire chapter to understand the message of Jesus, which is always one of non-violence.

    Jesus is about non-violence, Christians are about non-violence.

    The New Testament is non-violent and Christian.

    The Old Testament is not Christian, but rather the story and laws of the Jews. Old Testament passages cannot be used by Christians to justify anything Christian do or want to do. It just doesn’t work that way.

    Sorry, but only The New Testament applies to Christians.

    Besides TMell, my question was not for you but for aislander, who has remained curiously silent after claiming he had dozens of Bible reference he could draw from.

    aislander, where are some of your New Testament references? And remember, Old Testament passages don’t apply.

  155. keepinitreal says:

    scooter6139 says: Did you actually just say your God given right to bear arms? Seriously? I can’t wait for the bible passage to support that one.

    There have been more than a few given.

    Sitting here witnessing a true display of deflection coupled with ever changing stipulations from muckibr is sad really.

  156. No deflection or change in stipulations (what are you a lawyer? Will you stipulate to that?) in my posts, especially the 10:09 PM above. Have someone read it to you keep…, and you might understand. Like I said, you can keep the 2 Old Testament references, but they do not apply to Christians, only Jews. The rest I have proven wrong.

    Try again pal!

  157. beerBoy says:

    aislander – your belief that the Founders believed in the god-given right to bear arms is based on a whole lota extrapolation and misinterpretation of metaphor on your part.

    The one statement where the Founders could have invoked a god-given right only talks about the requirement for a well-regulated milita, nothing about self-defense of one’s home, nothing about god-given rights.

    The right to bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment – that is the only passage that counts – all this other stuff is based in bizarre claims made by keyboard warriors.

  158. beerBoy says:

    But I do want to thank you for providing an example of why literalist reads of Scripture, especially the sections that are clearly meant as metaphor, are so wrong-headed.

  159. You are wrong muck….Yes there is a time for violence. Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers in His Fathers temple and drove them from the temple. LOL, I already knew you would try to use the fact that Jesus healed the soldiers ear and told Peter to put away his sword as an attempt to deflect his prior direction to arm themselves.

    There are many other passages that I didn’t bother to post because you can easily choose to pretend they don’t apply to protecting yourself and your home. Nice try.

  160. Muck-if you are interested at all in other peoples opinions of what the Bible says, I’d strongly encourage you to read the book “Wild at heart”. It is written by a well respected christian author, and really challenges some individuals beliefs that christians should be wussified, pacifist individuals. It is a great read, and certainly re-affirmed my beliefs of what my responsibilities are to provide and protect my family as a christian man.

    As always, enjoy your deflection of facts :)

  161. muckibr says:

    TMell: ” Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers in His Fathers temple and drove them from the temple. LOL”

    QUESTION: What WEAPONS did Jesus use to cast the money changers out of the Temple?

    TMell: “There are many other passages that I didn’t bother to post ”

    CHALLENGE: Bring ‘em on! New Testament only please. Get together with aislander and see if he has his list ready yet.

    TMell: “I’d strongly encourage you to read the book “Wild at heart”. It is written by a well respected christian author ”

    TRUTH: About your book recommendation and it;s author John Eldredge: “Although he does not promote criminality, Eldredge has also received criticism because Wild at Heart has been used by the “pseudo-evangelical cult” and Mexican criminal cartel La Familia Michoacana.”

    “well respected christian author”, Respected by who, The Mexican MAFIA?

    I think I’ll pass and stick to reading my Bible for now, thanks!

  162. muckibr says:

    P.S. TMell “I already knew you would try to use the fact that Jesus healed the soldiers ear ”

    TRUTH: Apparently you didn’t TMell, because Jesus did NOT heal the “soldier’s ear”.

    In all the variations of the story at the Garden of Gethsemene (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and John 18) they ALL state that it was the ear of the High Priest’s “servant” that was cut off, that Jesus healed by touching the “servant.” Not a “soldier,” but a “servant” and his name was Malchus.

    You might want to dust off the old Bible and crack it open once in a while TMell, and get your facts straight instead of reading crap like “Wild at Heart”.

  163. keepinitreal says:

    Back to the letter topic. How would banning guns in National parks have had any impact on this tragic murder?

  164. scooter6139 says:

    I have enjoyed watching all these wanna-be bible experts get thoroughly eviscerated on their bible quotes. Context means everything but some can’t get past a literal translation.

    Tmell – thanks for the comment, but your statements raises the possibility that if someone comes to punch me in the face, I have the right to shoot and kill that person. I know this is an oversimplification but that is what you comment seemed to say to me.

    Blaine – You are the perfect example of a wanna-be commando, gleefully excited at the prospect of someone attempting to enter your house so you can gun them down. Nice. I will happily watch you rot in jail.

    Keep – From my brief research WA doesn’t have a Castle Law. Sorry I generalized to much with Texas. I know there are other states that do allow some form of defense but it is usually tied to personal safety issues, not personal property losses.

    To be honest, I am simply amazed that some think their TV is worth a persons life.

  165. TMell: “Jesus healed the soldiers ear and told Peter to put away his sword as an attempt to deflect his prior direction to arm themselves.”

    REVELATION: Not only do you call me a DEFLECTOR, but now you also call Jesus a DEFLECTOR!!!

    Apparently anyone, including Jesus Christ, who does NOT agree with YOU is DEFLECTing!

    OMG!!!

  166. SCORPION says:

    scooter – that is a problem with oversimplifications, they to be… well over simplistic.

    A recent episode occured where two men came to a home with a mother and child to do what? Punch her in the face… ok, and then what?

    How do we know they intened to stop with one simple punch?

    She had every right to defend herself with whatever means she had available that would effectively stop them from whatever actions they intended. A 12 guage double barrel shotgun is pretty effective.

    If Person A (Dead one) did not challenge her he would be alive though with a load in his pants. Person B (the apparent smarter one) ran away, with said load in pants to live another day… in jail but alive.

    If attacked, you have the right to defend yourself from further harm. If you are conscious, a quick assessment of the situation will determine your level of force. To avoid oversimplication, that determination will be different for everyone of us.

  167. keepinitreal says:

    I have enjoyed watching all the deflection from the actual topic.

    How would banning guns in national parks have prevented this murder ?

  168. Hey guys and gals, get another word besides “Deflect” “Deflection”. It’s boring and stupid.

  169. SCORPION says:

    “How would banning guns in national parks have prevented this murder ? “

    Absolutely none, the murder would still have happened, law or no law. The park ranger was suprised, ‘ambushed’ if you will. A tragic lose of life.

    I know that… you know that… and the people on this board who matter know that.

    As for the others, I suspect they know that too, but… well you know. ;)

  170. Not “ambushed”

    I thought we already educated you people on that.

    ambush |ˈamˌboŏ sh |
    noun
    a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position

    1. No one was in a concealed position.

    2. No one was “lying in wait” to shoot whomever passed by.

    A. Surprise attack? Yes. But NOT an ambush. NO WAY was it an “ambush!”

    And the people on this board “that matter” (properly stated would be “who matter”) are the people who are smart enough to know what an ambush is, and what it is NOT. If you don’t know what an ambush is, you don’t matter. As for those people, who don’t matter, they have clearly shown themselves to be clueless about other realities as well.

  171. SCORPION says:

    Thank you for sharing your opinion. I feel a joy in my heart after reading a post from you. A joy knowing that one can choose who one wishes to associate with, to converse with, to engage with, to share the wonders of language with…

    I believe Barnes ‘concealed’ his weapon from view of the Ranger by taking advantage of the ‘concealment’ that an solid object (door) provided. When he emerged from his vehicle, he ‘surprised’ the ‘unsuspecting’ Ranger and fired upon her. Being surprised she was unable to respond effectively and unfortunately died.

    I am not moved by your passionate response. Life and language are not always to be taken literally per dictionary.com. I was able to process the words from those that mattered. Their words touch my soul, provided a different perspective and in turn enrich my view of events that unfold before us.

    I now turn to the New Testament (and sometimes the Old – not a Jew but good stuff in there) for words that will enrich my life, provide a new perspective to current events, and provide comfort knowing I am commanded by God to provide for my family, to comfort them and protect by any means necessary.

    Let me share with you the words that provide the most comfort now…

    “yea, though I walk in the valleys of the shadows of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me… as well as this Ruger P95 with a 15 round magazine (up yours CA & MA) and one in the chamber.”

    Can I get an AMEN! ;)

  172. keepinitreal says:

    AMEN !

    :)

  173. keepinitreal says:

    http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120104/ARTICLE/120109842

    SARASOTA COUNTY – The homeless man decapitated Tuesday in a fight over spilled food has been identified as Stephen C. Webber, 53.

    Enlarge Stephen C. Webber, 53, was decapitated Tuesday in a fight over spilled food, according to sheriff’s deputies.
    The murder occurred mid-morning Tuesday in a wooded area used as homeless camp off the 3100 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

    The Sarasota Sheriff’s Office reports that Webber, Ricky L. Leer and another man were cooking food when Leer became enraged that Webber knocked over the grill.

    The third man told deputies Leer jumped Webber and chopped at his head with a machete.

    Leer, 48, was arrested Tuesday on a charge of second-degree murder.

    Webber’s next of kin was told of his death on Wednesday.

    ouch Since bedwetters ( a generalization, not pointing to a singular person) keep pulling the thread off topic, I figured this would not be considered “off topic”, as such.

  174. aislander says:

    SCORP: Some people love to get everyone bogged down in splitting the hairs of all those angels dancing in their pinheads…

  175. aislander says:

    …while, at the same time, acting as wannabe board nannies…

  176. scooter6139 says:

    Scorp – I agree with you that she took the right steps to protect herself and her children. As I stated in my first post, she retreated to a defensive position. The two men showed up and were obviously not intending to steal from her home but something far more menacing (12 inch hunting knife). She was perfectly justified when confronted by her multiple assailants in her defensive zone.

    I think you are misunderstanding my position though. Defense of ones life or another persons life justifies the taking of life. However, someone stealing your TV, stereo, car, jewelry or other paltry possession does not justify the taking of someones life. That is still murder is my book. Rushing while armed to confront a home invasion is inviting disaster, even though some on these boards seem to relish that idea. These are the same people who probably have a loaded handgun under the seat of their vehicle “just in case”.

  177. keepinitreal says:

    muckibr, what, praytell is your 5:13 pm personal attack about ?

  178. keep… It’s not a personal attack. I was simply empathizing with you on your self-admitted bedwetting problem that you described in the previous comment after the word “ouch”. You are the one who wrote that you have a bedwetting problem.

  179. SCORPION says:

    scooter – if I may I believe that we have a few preconceived notions and some assumptions that are unknowable.

    Two men – we have no clue what their intent was. Maybe they were simply attempting to retrieve something that belonged to them that her dead husband borrowed. He could have been attempting to return the hunting knife. The point is we don’t know what their actual intent was (unless the alive guy made a statement why they were there)The two men were alive and had very little risk of them being shot (21 minutes remember) as long as they stayed outside the home.

    Once they entered the home without permission of the lawful occupant they then started a chain reaction that ended in the death by lead poisoning of one individual.

    “Defense of ones life or another persons life justifies the taking of life.”

    Not necessarily, we can get into nauseating strawman arguments here. The law allows for the defense of one life under all circumstances. But the use of lethal force to defend one’s life is not necessarily justified in all circumstances. Civilians are given leeway in this area but are not absolved from acting responsibly.

    TV, stereo – again we can get into nauseating strawman examples here. The only caveat I would add here is how can you be sure that I am there standing at the foot of your bed at 3:00 AM only wanting to ask where the remote is for the Plasma TV I am stealing? …or the password to your laptop? … the keys to the car and the last oil change?

    Rushing to confront – I am not rushing to confront, I am rushing to push my defensive line out as far as practical so I then have options for retreat if need be. If you take a moment, that actually ‘saves’ a life.

    Loaded handguns in cars – it is hard to take someone seriously when most know that a handgun moves around if unsecured on the floor. It is best to have a gun secured in a holster whether on a person or one of those ‘seat holsters’ just sayin’

    ps – if the alive guy stated that they were there to rape and murder her then I’d like to nuance my statement about being the ‘smart one’ vs lead projectiles.

  180. Too Wild at Heart?
    Some evangelicals believe Eldredge is making God in his image.
    http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2004/august/15.34.html

  181. f you are interested at all in other peoples opinions of what the Bible says, I’d strongly encourage you to read the book “Wild at heart”

    interesting because:
    Etheridge writes that Eldredge expresses an “alarmingly unbiblical worldview,” especially regarding God’s sovereignty and authority, the person and …

    you have to subscribe to get the rest of the article and, apparently Eldredge’s original essay was taken down from a church website.

  182. slugoxyz says:

    hmm. Why doesn’t anyone like Muck?

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0