Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GUNS: Is this ‘freedumb’ what I fought for?

Letter by Jim Curtis, Maple Valley on Aug. 3, 2012 at 1:08 pm with 147 Comments »
August 3, 2012 1:08 pm

Re: “Armed nation is a free nation” (letter, 8-2).

I’d sure like to know where the freedom is here in the United States these days.

Right now American families have to be very concerned about being shot to death just about anywhere we go, including movie theaters, restaurants, schools, parks and shopping malls.

Maybe what we really have these days should be called “freedumb,” as it isn’t anything like what I fought for over in Vietnam 4o-plus years ago.


Leave a comment Comments → 147
  1. Theefrinker says:

    I’m not a Vietnam War expert or anything, but I’m pretty sure it hadn’t anything to do with fighting for our freedom over here.

  2. alindasue says:


    They were “fighting for our freedom” in Vietnam just as much as our current soldiers in Afghanistan are now. Think about it…

  3. aislander says:

    Murder rate is down…

  4. Theefrinker says:

    Yeah I know. I didn’t want to start calling out all of the wars, lest I be mistaken for being “unpatriotic”. I fight for my freedom by disobeying speed limit signs when I find them unreasonable.

  5. IMO

    Fewer and fewer civilians are willing to make the personal and physical commitments and to take the risks required for personal protection and self-defense (G. Gordon Liddy discussed this in his Autobiography).

  6. Mr. Curtis, You make an excellent point. Pretty sad that Americans are arming themselves to the hilt against other Americans…”freedumb” is a great word for it. It is the sad outcome of those who abuse the intent of the 2nd ammendment…conspiracy theories and fear permeate the on-line forums and talk shows. Follow the money…who benefits? Who profits? And, seems like plenty of people are suffering too much “freedumb” to see they are being easily manipulated by self serving fear mongers. More guns will not make this a better country for our children or grandchildren.

  7. Jim,

    You do have one right I choose not to take advantage of: the freedom from thought or in your case the “right to be an idiot”. It seems because you can’t add 1 and 1, those who chose to own firearms must continue to hear your bleating, can you hire shepherds to protect your asses, please…I will not give up mine and I will not protect you…Goodness you make me sick! Oh, this weekend I will be on the range want to join us..

  8. LeePHill says:

    “aislander says:
    Aug. 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm Murder rate is down…”

    Of course. Obama is president!

  9. “Murder rate is down”

    Yes.., Fewer thugs on the streets since it became legal for unfit mothers to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

  10. JimK. Your post is a good example of why the term “freedumb” applies. Just what we need, more guns in the hands of immature adults.

  11. Oh Lee what did I say that frightened you? I’m sorry I should have known, the thought of others being able to protect themselves would scare you. Being that I do own a firearm, my PHALLIC(not the symbol)is very much larger that yours. Leave our RIGHT alone and this whole kerfuffle will end. Make no mistake, that I do understand, we won’t change your minds, also make no mistake you won’t change ours…

  12. averageJose says:

    Jim… perhaps the media is causing your fright. Gun violence is down (less the Obama walking guns scheme of course).
    LOL that you think you speak or represent American families.

  13. donfosters says:

    I can understand why some people have issues with guns, not everyone is comfortable with them. I am a responsible gun owner and have a concealed weapons permit. I carry a weapon with me at all times outside of my home just because they’re many crazy people out there. Just think what would the outcome be if myself or someone like myself were at that movie theatre in Colorado. Most likely a whole different story. I not only will protect my family and friends but also those people who are against guns and for gun control. This is my right.

  14. Watch out donfosters, the name calling is about to start…I support your view and appreciate your post…

  15. A well functioning militia is necessary for the security of a free country. That’s what the 2nd amendment is about. Not protecting oneself from other citizens, but from the threat of tyranny. (oh, and for yow banners; the ‘militia’ is the whole body of men, not a ‘national guard’)

  16. averageJose says:

    Watch out donfosters, the name calling is about to start

    Indeed… Aug. 3rd at 10:40pm
    btw, JimK, the letter writer’s name is Jim… that’s who I was responding to. I’m an avid 2nd amendment supporter. ;)

  17. Trueblue22 says:

    “Of course. Obama is president!”
    Is there any topic where you cannot help yourself from inserting a cheerlead for BHO?
    Anyway…I think Jim is expressing his disappointment in his fellow American. Not a dissertation on the merits of the Second Amendment. On that point, I would strongly agree with him.

  18. lovethemountains says:

    In discussions such as this it is important to put into perspective the numbers of shootings and death from shootings in this country. The percentage of legitimate gun owners in this country who commit crimes with their firearms is infinitesimal. I am not detracting from the tragedy of a death either at the hands of a killer or by accidental discharge but the gun issue is blown out of proportion by any standard.

  19. I do name call, I admit, will the opposition? Nothing said here by “anyone” on “any side” will change minds…I find it funny how the other side can be so against name calling when they excel at it.

    Averagejoe, I apologize for my confusion, I support the Second Amendment too. Everything else be damned, my motivation is to keep the Republic as it was founded, not continuously evolving like the left wants it too, when are they done evolving it?.

    I see, whether others laugh or not, a hard swing toward a socialized America. That’s my point of view, I can have my own opinion, I am very passionate about my country, I will protect it from enemies foreign or domestic. My daughter will live in a country were failure is a possibility but also is success. Government is a siphon on our society.

    So as you’ve noticed, I never was involved in debate club but I have my opinions, I will state them.

    Averagejose, again I apologize!

  20. LeePHill says:

    Trueblue – I’m so sorry I wasted that bit of satire on you. My sincere apologies

  21. LeePHill says:

    Hey…Jose….what was “Operation Wide Receiver”?

    gscott – do some research on the real history of the 2nd Amendment. Don’t use the Glenn Beck version.

    I have the popcorn consession for the war between JimK and the US miliary.

  22. LeePhil,

    What, wow and zing-zang did you get me! I’m truly hurt by your words, you know I believe you’re nothing more than a bully LeePhil a big fat bully! All liberals are! Names may irk me but they won’t hurt me.
    There will be no war between us, they took the same oath I did in 1977.Just because Obama would try to “order” the Armed Forces against their fellow Americans, means they will.
    Hate to break the news to you, idiot, oops sorry for the name calling but the Armed forces are on the side of the citizen, not the president.
    Oh by the way, I like kettle corn, I am fat enough already, I don’t need the butter.Better yet bring as many flavors as you like because I like to share. I will bring the beer and soft drinks…

  23. the3rdpigshouse says:

    The benefits of liberalism and a sick judicial system!!

  24. WBusheyShipsBoatswain says:

    I don’t want to take your guns away, but I do want you to have to have a big liability insurance policy to go with it as part of the requirements for conceal carry and military style rifles. That way, when one of the many wanna-be heroes puts a bullet in the wrong person, in addition to going to jail all medical expenses for the bystander are covered. No insurance, no CCW and no military grade rifles.

  25. More lies from Hill. We all know what wide receiver was, and how it has nothing to do with Fast and Furious. Why do you repeat that lie?

    So if all Americans are “dumb”, we MUST rely on big govt to keep us safe from ourselves, correct leftists? Who keeps us safe from them?

    Down because BHO is president? If the long term impact of his personal contributions to communities are showing anywhere, it is Chicago. How is that working out?

  26. Capybara91 says:

    Don’t mind the folks on their urban safari. It’s just the latest disorder-AK47D. Hope you saved your flak jacket. By the way, Jim, thank you for your real service to our country.

  27. WBusheyShipsBoatsw,

    I will agree to that if, all you who don’t want us to fully enjoy our Right without caveats, will also get insurance! So when a crazed leftest goes on a shooting spree (which happens more than ofter than you will admit)and we can’t protect ourselves, you will have to pay our medical bills, long term disability and/or funeral costs.
    When was the last time a ccw holder shot someone trying to save others, they have shot people because they were idiots among other reasons. No government entity can protect my family but if a crazed gunman goes on a shooting rampage, I would like to believe someone will be able to fight back.
    Another law won’t make a difference, group punishment is immoral and limiting law abiding citizens rights will only benefit CRIMINALS…

  28. You’re more likely to die in a car accident than to be shot by a deranged gunman. And by more likely I mean 1500 times more likely. The random shootings like the one in Aurora are extremely rare and can be kept rare if normal citizens are allowed to protect themselves. On a side note, I would hate to see what your definition of freedom is…

  29. penumbrage says:

    WBushey – Good luck, insurance companies use actuarial tables estimating the odds of an event happening to set prices. With 270,000,000 guns and 11,015 accidental deaths and homicides (the vast majority of which are related to gangs, drugs or other criminal activities) you have about 99.996% of US citizens guns being responsibly owned and operated. With self defense accidental deaths being so vanishingly few, the premiums wouldn’t justify the cost of writing and maintaining the policies.
    Meanwhile, the National Criminal Victimization Survey shows over 4.5 million violent assaults a year on Americans and the 1 in 63 odds are what drives self defense gun ownership.
    Are you sure you’re being realistic about which threat to worry about?

  30. averageJose says:

    what was “Operation Wide Receiver”?

    Discontinued… as in cancelled, halted, ceased…

  31. Publico says:

    A gun in the home is more likely to kill or injure a family member than to stop an outsider trying to get in. And it is closer to 30,000 a year killed by a gun in this country.
    I wonder what kind of paranoia it is that makes JimK think he needs a gun for the conditions he states concern him.
    The 2nd needs to be repealed and changed to reflect modern society, modern guns and modern freedoms since the righties on the Supreme Court don’t seem to know.

  32. Pub- how about I worry about my family and home while you worry about yours?

    For a group that preaches about keeping govt out of the bedroom, they certainly want them everywhere else.

  33. Publico,

    People like you who believe the way you do, paranoia isn’t what drives me but a severe dislike of your kind does. Even if it were to be repealed I wouldn’t give them up…I do not want my girl living in a country that you and your ilk control…She will be raised to think for herself, to make her own decisions that aren’t guided by government mandate, she will be free. Now off to the pool, paid for by me,with my daughter, we will enjoy a day of freedom….

  34. lovethemountains says:

    Publico may be right. And along with his idea of repealing the 2nd we should seriously consider changing the 1st. After all, speech in the form of differing opinions, has caused more violence and wars than guns. People with ideas cause wars…not the implements used in the wars. Unfortunately, both gun control and people control are pretty impossible feats.

  35. penumbrage says:

    Publico – Considering the fact that suicides happen even in Japan (more than twice as many as the US, in fact), a firearm is obviously not required so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed they would have been bright enough to figure out some other means of self-termination had a firearm not been available.
    I’d love to see your source for the ‘more killed than stopped an outsider’ statement, I suspect it’s the thoroughly debunked ‘Kellerman study’.
    You probably never even heard about the other Aurora shooting a few months back, where the shooter only claimed one victim before an armed member of the congregation put him down. Thankfully the church was not a posted ‘No Self Defense Allowed’ zone like the theater was.

  36. When guns grow legs and learn to walk and talk, then I might consider some restrictions on them. To my knowledge there’s never been a case of a gun jumping up all by itself and start shooting people. If the libs manage to ban guns, what’s next TNT? bows and arrows? baseball bats? knifes? screwdrivers? gasoline? (oh wait, they are already working on that).

  37. JimK, trying to explain anything about the military to the likes of LeePHill, is a total waste of time. He’s never served anything except himself. He’s the type who has a profound dislike for the military except when it serves his purpose. Typical meat floggin’ lib.

  38. WBusheyShipsBoatswain says:

    If the Aurora shooter had to show proof of insurance prior to the wapons purchase, he either woudln’t have gotten the weapons, or the victims wouldn’t be struggling to pay bills. While actuaries run numbers, the bottom line here is for a “what if” blanket policy. Ownership equals insurance. All the responsible owners paying in would cover the odd whack job or accidental shooting.

  39. So the magic solution to stopping violence is for everyone to buy insurance? Why didn’t I think of that?

  40. See Frosty, talking sense to these people is useless, so I will no longer try… WBusheyShipsBoatswain, why wouldn’t he have gotten the weapons, in such a world as yours the black market would have easily been able to supply him…If I were thinking of doing what he did I could think of a hundred ways to have killed those people, I choose being a law abiding citizen though so I find the thought abhorrent. He even made bombs, remember the apartment, so I guess your answer is another law…We have enough already…His psychiatrist knew he had the potential and did nothing so why don’t you blame her…Don’t make yourself feel good because of Holmes by punishing me…

  41. beerBoy says:

    JimK when you start turning to frosty for a reality check…you aren’t making sense.

  42. rubioloco says:

    Would like t0 share a fact for all of you to discuss

    The hew and cry is that we need to ban/restrict assualt weapons. You know, the scary black guns, AK47, SKS…. semi auto/high capacity magazines.

    They are bad stuff accounting for 3800 deaths between 2000-2008 (to be honest the stat references rifles and does not break out assualt weapons)

    Thats a LOT of people…… Ban the dangerous things!!!

    But wait, the same report data shows that 16,000 people were killed with KNIVES during that same time period. Thats like killing all the citizens in Monroe.

    So why is there no hew and cry to ban knives???

    As a gun owner / concealed carry permitee my thoughts have always revolved around issuing a similar permit for general gun ownership. Not listing serial numbers, numbers of weapons or any such requirement. But merely to prove legal status to purchase a firearm in the US. The stats bear it out that violent crime rates drop in areas with concealed carry while at the same time, permit holders ststistically are far less likely to commit ANY crime.

    But if both sides oppose this requirement, then lets do this objectively.

    If we ban assault weapons do to their lethality then we had better be turning in our knives on the same day.

  43. BB, you’ve only drank 10 of the 12 when your get done, pass out then come back and say your piece…just stfu ok, no one is listening too, or talking to you..god you are a boar…

  44. aJo,
    Gun-walking began under Bush,
    was officially ended under Obama,
    but was continued by rogue elements left over from Bush era.

    DonF – ‘out come in Colorado if you or your kind had been there’
    Most likely nothing because you would not have engaged, second most likely more movie goers dead or wounded.

    JimK – ‘name calling about to start’ Rather more like already started by you.

    Love – statistically license gun owners shoot family and friends more often that they shoot criminals.

    JimK –
    ‘to keep the Republic as it was founded means among other things;
    Only White men could vote or hold office, and
    Most blacks would be slaves.

    The Oath – Would that be the one ‘to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic’.

    I took the Oath in 1964.

    The Military exits to protect the Nation and has never refused an order from the President.
    Besides, you don’t rate the military. At best all might rate a couple of FBI agents who had never served in the military.

    CT – What political position did Obama hold in Chicago?

    JimK – when was the last time a ‘crazed LEFTIST when on a shooting spree?

    Penumbrage – where did you get your nunbers?
    My research says the estimated number of guns in the US is 350,000,000.

    CT – what happens in the bedroom is less adept to kill me.

    Frosty – when gun control / confiscation comes to America it will come from the right and be sold (and accepted) as a necessary, but only temporary, measure due to National Security.

    And one thing we can agree on – once the government has a power it does not givi it up.

  45. rubioloco says:

    JimK You do absolutely NOTHING to advance the cause of legal gun ownership with your personal attacks. Shouting down oppossing comments is immature and embarrassing.

    As a fellow gun owner it is important that we address the subject of regulation with facts not insults. To stand on the bully pulpit makes you look uneducated with an inability to present a reasonible retort based on solid fact. This just fuels the publics image of gun owners as being redneck dunderheads that need a gun to be a ‘man’. That persona will have the progressive majority in this state implimenting restrictions you would not want inacted

    Please resist the urge to be offensive as it is hurtng not helping the cause.

    PS: By the way…as a gun owner your should know that the term for a boring person is the same at the path your bullet travels down the barrell….. it is a bore

    This is a simply defended position if you stick to the facts.

  46. lovethemountains says:

    xring, Eric Holder is not a “left over from the Bush era.” As much as he has tried to wiggle out of this debacle he has not been able to do so.

  47. penumbrage says:

    WBushey – You never answered my question about being more concerned by the statistically insignificant chance of being killed by an errant round from a CWP’s self defense engagement than you were by the 1 in 63 chance of being the target of a violent assault. Normally I’d take this as a sign that you were unable to devise a coherent argument against my point (and too embarrassed to admit it in public), but here you are talking about insurance again like it was the more likely possibility.
    How about every business that takes the responsibility for an individual’s safety out of that person’s hands by posting a “No Firearms Allowed” sign be required to pay when they fail to live up to the responsibility they arbitrarily assumed if someone gets hurt or killed?

  48. beerBoy says:

    JimK – it is a good thing for you that maturity, wit and intelligence aren’t requirements for gun ownership as you would never qualify. Your attempt at putting me down based upon my screen name was just…..embarrassing.

    What many of you are overlooking is that – as inane as this letter is – it never made an overt statement about gun control. It really didn’t say much of anything.

  49. lovethemountains says:

    rubioloco, very good redress of the comments by JimK.

  50. Yes ETB – we all fought so you and all the other little basses can believe lies.

  51. Publico says:

    JimK still needs to see an analyst to see where his views fall in the course of intelligent discourse.

  52. Frosty,
    The magic silver bullet for stopping violence is to hold each perpetrator responsible for their actions and consequences of those actions.

    And if that means doing time there is a Sheriff in Arizona that knows how to run a jail.

    Not only does JimK not advance the case of gun ownership, he is a perfect poster boy for the anti-gun groups.

    With guns the bigger the bore the higher the caliber,

    With people the bigger the bore the smaller the caliber.

    When Holder requested information on gun-walking those involved lied and said the gun-walker program had been shut down. Which was Holder initial report to the Issa Committe.

    Later when a whistle-blower came forward, Holder submitted a revised report, which Congressman Issa rejected as an attempt to cover up the lies Holder knowingly included the initial report.

    Prenum – ‘hold the business responsible’ – my what a fine spoalist idea. How about we hold the person who broke the law responsible.

    bBoy – if JimK were half as knowledgeable about guns as he thinks he is he would understand my screen name (to which I have a legitimist claim) , and its significant.

  53. averageJose says:

    LMAO @ Your attempt at putting me down based upon my screen name was just…..embarrassing considering …

    beerBoy says:
    Jan. 15, 2012 at 3:48 pm “Vox_clamato”?
    …some people actually like Clamato.
    Could be worse. Here is one: vox chlamydia……
    Just riffing here – please don’t get mad.

    … and of course your weird intrepretaion of what the name of Gov. of Idaho reminds you of…

  54. One last thing to all the lib’s out there, is there anything you haven’t heard that will change your minds? No, so why would I even try? You’re not only idiots but fools as well..

  55. Oh and please tell us where you all got your wisdom? You guys excel at name calling and putting people down….I wonder if some day we met and you were exactly as I picture you…You will be easy to spot, that I do not doubt…I will continue to have my guns and you will have nothing so for all the pissing and moaning you guys do, it is for naught.

    BeerBoy…it must mean you are a lush or some twit selling beer at a baseball either way you are a nothing…I bet on lush…

  56. Publico says:

    JimK, you may think you will always have your guns, but the day may come when you will not or your descendents will not possess them as freely as they can now. A society held hostage by the threat of gun violence is not a free society.
    What you and your ilk propose is close to anarchy. I can think of no better term short of falling into the name calling you seem to abhor and relish at the same time.

  57. bobcat1a says:

    You’re not only idiots but fools as well.. -jimK

    AUG. 4, 2012 AT 9:20 PM
    You guys excel at name calling and putting people down…BeerBoy…it must mean you are a lush or some twit selling beer at a baseball either way you are a nothing…I bet on lush…

    If anyone is not sure what IRONY is, JimK just laid it out for you.
    And exactly how do you “sell beer at a baseball”?

  58. rubioloco says:

    Though I doubt we will meet,I would treat you with respect if we did. in fact you would actually like me though you may doubt it at this hour, but you would.

    Your opinion of what I (as well as others on this blog) would look like is likely off base. To begin with I am as far from liberal as they come. I have served this county for many years as a volunteer firefighter/EMTd. You would find this respondant you discribed as a liberal driving an off-road jeep and spending my weekends raising hogs. I hunt, fish and am an avid gun owner/reloader.

    My family and I live in rural Pierce county (where the sheriffs have 20-30 minute response times). We require firearms as a means to protect ourselves as criminal activity will not wait for the sheriff to respond. We also hunt to help fill the freezer. I have a concealed permit as my profession takes me to many high-crime areas. Basically, I probably mirror you in many ways

    But where we differ is in respecting those that oppose my point of view. You will NEVER win a battle by berating people when you are trying to win them to your point of view. I am a staunch opponent of gun oppression (the term that best fits the Feinstien/Schaummer mandate). But am also understanding that there is a distinct need to develop realistic oversight for firearms. Though we cannot regulate crazy people from doing crazy things we should be intelligent enough to establish a ‘means test’ that will minimize their access to weapons (all weapons)

    Please do yourself a favor. Learn how to support your position without the caustic venom your demonstrated today. I hate to admit is (as we are actually on the same side) but you lost today. This loss just solidified many people against our cause.

    Guns dont kill people….. but egotistical gun owners kill everyones opportunity for legitimate gun owner ship

  59. beerBoy says:

    aJ – you are slipping, you didn’t parse that quote in such a way as to not show that my comment wasn’t meant as a put-down of Clamato but just playing with his name…..kinda like my post about the Idaho governor’s name.

    Really dude….if you are going to stalk me on all of these threads so you can pile on with past quotes of mine taken out of context, you need to be more careful with your editing so you don’t include any context.

    You see aJ, if you look at JimK’s posts, he goes into accusatory speculation about my behavior based upon my screen name. In both the Clamato and the Butch Otter instances I just played with the name without suggesting that the named one’s behavior reflected the name.

  60. penumbrage says:

    xring – Of course, anyone who uses a gun is responsible for every round fired.
    WBushey was concerned about who should pay for the victim’s medical costs, so I offered him a party with much more liability for the vast majority of mass firearms killings than the responsible gun owners or CWP holders nationwide – the institutions that choose the ‘no firearms allowed’ policies that simultaneously attracts insane shooters to commit their murder sprees there and denies law abiding citizens even the opportunity to stop them.

  61. penumbrage says:

    publico – You sound like you’d be happier living in the UK where the hundreds of gun deaths (you weren’t so naive as to believe even excessively strict firearms bans could stop criminals from getting guns, were you?) and the hundreds of thousands of knife assaults (140,000 in London alone as guns got scarce and criminals had to switch tools to get the job done) each year are perpetrated on subjects who have been stripped by their own government of the basic right to fight for their lives or the lives of their loved ones.
    I’ll stay here in the US where citizens are treated by their government as responsible adults (even if a scant few fail to meet that standard), where criminals have to worry about risking their own lives when they choose to threaten a law abiding citizen’s life and where civilian justified homicides always outnumber law enforcement justified homicides (sometimes double, in spite of LE’s being always armed and radio dispatched to every violent encounter).
    The big difference between you and me is that I don’t demand that you (and folks like you) take up arms against your will (even if it would reduce the national firearm murder rate to virtually zero like it did in Kennesaw), while you have no problem whatsoever with trying to force your beliefs on me.

  62. LeePHill says:

    “frosty says:
    Aug. 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm JimK, trying to explain anything about the military to the likes of LeePHill, is a total waste of time. He’s never served anything except himself.”

    That just goes to show how little frosty knows about me. I served in the Pacific NW Militia who defended our local states from enemy attack. Since we’ve never been attacked, you can see what a great job we did. We were a very clandestine group.

  63. averageJose says:

    Not slipping at all b. It shows how you think a paltry disclaimer excuses YOU from namecalling and such. ;)

  64. averageJose says:


    • beerBoy2 wrote on 09/17/2009 06:25:44 PM:
    here’s a personal attack for you Wendy – go pleasure yourself. offended by my “personal attack on Howie – have the cajones to report it yourself.

  65. beerBoy says:

    I sincerely hope there is more to your life than this….

  66. penumbrage says:

    LeePHill – Glad you showed up again, I meant to ask you about

    ‘ LeePHill – “…the “individual right” was concocted via politics.”
    Then you should have no trouble providing numerous quotes from the founders supporting your contention that an armed citizenry was not their intention.’

    from the last gun thread. I just wanted to confirm that your inability to meet my challenge was due to an utter lack of any reliable sources to support your claim. I’d hate to jump to the wrong conclusion not knowing if you were just too lazy to answer or if the search was taking a whole lot longer than you thought it would.

  67. sandblower says:

    penumbrage, I do like the UK and could easily live there if I chose to. The Brits are very civil in my experience.
    Gun nuts cannot get around the fact that it is not the criminal element about which we are only concerned. There are far too many gun deaths caused by ordinary persons who are not criminals until AFTER they have pulled the trigger. Guns are for the most part designed to kill something. Why do we need to have so many guns with rapid fire capabilities floating around our society available to just about anyone? Countries with strict and restricted ownership rules have far fewer gun deaths. The logic is plain and simple.
    The first step should be to ban assault type weapons for all the known reasons. The next step should be to ban anything that is semi-automatic. The next step should be to require training and certification on an ongoing basis for any kind of gun ownership. We could also have caliber limits and ammunition limits. I would perhaps stop at single shot weapons for everyone except law enforcement and the military. Accurate data would prove the point. Gun safes and trigger locks are automatic too.

  68. And you wonder why we trust you not. You have here written by one of the most vocal leftists around, their true agenda…It won’t happen easily or soon so I see a to the UK in your future. Never did say how you are planning to confiscate the guns of criminals or law abiding citizens. I guarantee this it will be messy and in the end a waste of time. I suggest that all those wanting to do away with our Right, volunteer to be the ones to collect them. No, I suppose you’ll let others do the hard work, while you reload that pipe dream of yours…

  69. Okay, again I admit that I am human and my grammar is poor but i am passionate about protecting my family and country. But I’m not delusional, with all the common sense arguments put forth by individuals far smarter than I, your have not been won over. So why should I try, remember the old adage about, expecting a different result. Call me all the names you want, tell all about how immature I am or how misguided, I don’t care. I have no respect for people who want to force me to disarm, to take away my ability to protect my family the way I see fit, that’s my call not yours…

  70. “Just think what would the outcome be if myself or someone like myself were at that movie theatre in Colorado.”

    Just think how having armed and trained users of firearms would have helped lowed the fatality rate in Lakewood. Oh wait, there were four armed, trained people there. And they’re all dead.

  71. Anyone who is well trained can be ambushed and killed. Happens all the time, remember Afghanistan, if the cowards were to stand and fight they would lose. It doesn’t take a well trained attacker to kill four unsuspecting cops, if he had given them a chance he most probably have died violently, he was a coward though. Another bit of faulty reasoning here, you’re trying to justify the indefensible. You can’t prove a negative, true, but we will never know for sure will we?

  72. “you’re trying to justify the indefensible”

    I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m pointing out that the presence of trained, armed people doesn’t guarantee a lower body count.

  73. dlockner says:

    Hello…earth to jimk…nobody is trying to take away your phallic symbol. It’s an election cycle and the GOP has trotted out its usual list of issues for single issue voters to hook guppies like you. Stop using your mouth to think and use your brain. Real men don’t talk about their weapon. You talk about nothing else. You would never know that a real man was armed. Your a perfect example of the letter writers concern. The only reason you have a weapon is your addiction to it. Your insecurity and immaturity should disqualify your right to bear arms. Your a danger to the community. If you had been in Colorado you would have been kissing the floor like everyone else. I can’t change your mind because you haven’t got the brainpower. Your on life support as it is. Don’t bother..i’m signing off..i’ve read more than enough of your position. Try listening.

  74. Somehow that low flying airplane, namely my point, was missed entirely. They were ambushed, these people are cowards!The cops were the TARGETS, and as such were never given a chance, can’t you see the difference… True, there are no guarantees,if the only people that carry guns are the cops and criminals,we are doomed! If the cops get killed than what happens to the rest of us? Am I to rely on happy thoughts of rainbows and unicorns to protect my family? At least with a gun, I have a chance without one I don’t. Don’t try to take away my right to protect my family the way I fit, you don’t have THAT RIGHT!

  75. dlicknor,
    Have we met? Do you have a camera set up looking at my or other man’s phallic? I bet you do because it is very obvious that you will rely on others to protect you and your family. Say what you will, that is something I can guarantee, you’re just noise an incessant noise, you may want to take drugs for…You do not know me but you are very judgmental, making statements that you can’t back up. I may not be as “eloquent” as you are, big deal. Want to make such personal statements come from behind your screen name, I will be glad to oblige you too, who are you again?

  76. dardena says:

    Hmmm, I am a Vietnam combat veteran, and I am (and was at the time) sure that our sacrifices were for the betterment of America, through the “neutralization of the Communist Threat”.

    Laugh as you will, but had we not intervened in Vietnam, our nation would not be anywhere near as secure from foreign intervention as it now has become.

    Simply put, can you imagine an America under the control of Communist Zealots such as Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro?

    OK, we got Obama, guess I’ll have to take that back.


  77. beerBoy says:

    “Just think what would the outcome be if myself or someone like myself were at that movie theatre in Colorado.”

    Can you point to ONE mass shooting incident that prevented deaths because a citizen had a concealed gun on the scene?

    Owning a gun doesn’t put an S on your chest to go along with your tights and cape.

  78. Since nobody has yet mentioned today’s tragedy in Wisconsin, I will. Some madman enters a temple and starts shooting people, the cops arrive, are ambushed and one cop is severely wounded. What if someone in that building had a concealed carry permit? It is yet to be determined if this person, the shooter, had a permit or legally could own a gun. However the question remains. If it turns out that this individual was not alowed to have a gun, that takes all of the steam out of the confistication arguments.

  79. beerBoy says:

    awkward sentence above:

    Can you point to ONE mass shooting incident where deaths were prevented by a citizen who had a concealed gun on the scene?

  80. xring, you make me proud. You, a liberal, actually had a good word to say about Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona. Watch out, they’ll be coming afetr you next.

  81. LeePHill, so you claim membership in the Pacific NW Militia? Heck, I know some of those guys! They sit around in the local tavern and tell war stories about how tough it was to sleep out in the rain last week. I didn’t think you had it in you.

  82. LeePHill says:

    Uh…frosty….there was no Pacific NW Militia……LMAO

    ::::makes sign of hook in mouth:::::

    FISH ON!!!!!

    Terry…..I’m laughing as I will…. The country we saved from communism is communist today.

  83. took14theteam says:

    nobody is trying to take away your phallic symbol

    The Washington Monument is more of a phallic symbol than a gun.

  84. LeePHill says:

    “took14″ would know

  85. took14theteam says:

    Sorry PIANO man, you didn’t HOOK anybody…..

  86. Good one frosty.

  87. Frankenchrist says:

    More 2nd Amendment teabagger hijinks in Wisconsin.

  88. beerBoy says:

    The Washington Monument is more of a phallic symbol than a gun.

    Good luck with your conceal carry….

  89. Frosty – not many people care firearms into a houses of worship.

    And I am a progressive, not a liberal.

  90. averageJose says:

    I sincerely hope there is more to your life than this….

    LOL… a casual observation of your posts says you spend a heckuva lot more time here than I do. ;)

    Thanks for your concern tho.

  91. averageJose says:

    New knee slapper of the day… “And I am a progressive, not a liberal.

    There is a distiction?

  92. sandblower says:

    Poor JimK thinks he needs to protect his family from some unknown threat when, in fact, the worst threat is the gun that resides in his own house.
    The guy in Wisconsin was a balding white guy. That is the description of the very worst threat for someone with a gun who is not obviously a mental case as the guy was in Colorado.
    The tea party is the breeding ground for that kind of domestic terrorists. They are far worse than the Black Panthers who at least had segregation’s effects in their favor.

  93. sandblower says:

    The phallic symbol metaphor going around is more about the gun owner’s inability to man up mentally without a gun and the Power he derives from having a gun because of his inherent failure. Interview after interview of gun toting folks who have gotten into trouble prove the point. Look it up.

  94. sandblower says:

    I am a progressive liberal and proud of it. I also believe that democratic socialism is a viable form of democracy, perhaps more enduring than what we have in the USA. Guns do not belong in either from the simple standpoint of public health.

  95. Frankenchrist says:

    Tea Party = Domestic Terrorists

  96. The nuts are out in full effect tonight.

    Democratic socialism? LOL. Move.

  97. wyecoyote says:

    Democratic Socialism wasn’t that tried in the USSR and China. Oh wait it just morphs into Communisim is the eventual goal. With a need to disarm the populace.

    Sandblower you definatley are blowing smoke. Seems to me that most the domestic terrorists came from the occupy movement. What with all the damage and destruction their ilk did with the help of their supporters the anarchists.

  98. Frankenchrist says:

    RepublIcon teabagger slaughters Sikhs in Wisconsin. Watch the GOP blames Obama.

  99. beerBoy says:

    Democratic Socialism wasn’t that tried in the USSR and China.

    Not even close.

    The term is used by socialist organizations that are opposed to Leninist communism and Marxist-Leninism.

  100. Either way, unAmerican.

  101. beerBoy says:

    Where in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, or any other founding documents does it indicate that free market capitalism is the economic system that must be maintained?

  102. LeePHill says:

    “CT7 says:
    Aug. 6, 2012 at 6:24 am Either way, unAmerican.”

    So Sayeth John Birch. Such a small mind….

  103. LeePHill says:

    Birchers need an enemy…..real or not.

  104. MyBandito says:

    “The nuts are out in full effect tonight.”

    The pot calling………..

  105. mcgintey says:

    Threefinker, Vietnam was a fight for freedom essentially. Communism was taking aim on spreading throughout Asia among the poor and illiterate. It was a cancer that needed slowing and evetually died a death.

  106. aJo,
    Yes there is, and a major one at that.

    The fact that you did not know this speaks volumes about you education and knowledge.

    The knee slapper of the day is that JimK will never see people he is defending against because they will hit him when no one is home.

    CT7 = makes more since that compassionate, small government conservative.

    Jamestown – first successful English colony in America survived because of socialism – i.e Captain Smith’s famous ‘no work no eat policy.

    Wyncoyte – communist is republican, one-party socialism.

    LeePHill – Actually, Birchers, like all conservatives, need two enemies – one internal, one external and preferable both the same (or at least connectable).

    Mcgomtey – one of the many things the VC did better than our puppet regime was winning the hearts and minds of the people.

  107. LeePHill, I know there is and was no Pacific NW Militia, that’s why I thought you would be a member in good standing. I’m afraid the “hook in the mouth” is actually in your thumb. Nice try, as childish as it may have been.

  108. xring, “I’m a progressive, not a liberal”. Right-on xring, and the glass is half empty, not half full. BTW, can you tell me more about that “Combat Service Medal” you got in RVN? I still can’t find it in the Marine Corps (not corpse as Obama would say) list of citations.

  109. sumyungboi says:

    The letter writer believes that those who don’t agree with his point of view are dumb. What an awesome launch to debate.

  110. MyBandito says:

    And you think that those who don’t agree with your point of view are smart?

    End of debate.

  111. LeePHill says:

    frosty…nice attempt at saving face….as if you had one worth saving

  112. penumbrage says:

    sandblower – Well, thank God you’re not some extremist who’s left folks no room for compromise.
    Unlike ‘assault rifle’ (which has a clear definition among arms manufacturers, armorers and the professionals that use them), ‘assault weapons’ (a scary sounding term invented by gun control groups), has half a dozen conflicting meanings, so you’ll have to be more specific if you want an accurate answer.
    Do you mean rapid fire guns like a revolver that can fire 6 shots on target, reload and fire 6 more shots on target in 2.99 seconds?
    Do you mean the legal, semi-automatic AR15s like the shopkeepers used to defend their stores during the Rodney King riots (the ones who weren’t dragged out of their businesses and beaten bloody while their shops were looted and burned)?
    Do you mean guns covered by the 1994 ban on scary looking rifles that operate exactly the same as your grandfather’s hunting rifle that had no noticeable effect on any type of crime?
    Do you mean guns that take the high capacity magazines that multiple bans have also proven utterly useless in reducing any type of crime?
    I know, it’s much easier to punish the 99.996% of gun owners who use them legally and responsibly than than it is to try and figure out a way to actually reduce the 4.5 million violent assaults and 8300 homicides a year that known criminals commit.
    If (God forbid) you got all your wishes, when the violent crime rate increased (the opposite effect of the violent crime rate dropping compared to the national average in every single state that has passed a CWP law), I wonder who you’d blame then?

  113. penumbrage says:

    LeePHill – I’m still waiting for an answer from you, but if it’s an IQ or a courage issue on your part I’ll try to be understanding.

  114. LeePHill, the last thing from my mind is trying to “save face” from the likes of you. You flatter yourself if you think I would go to the trouble to appease you. My sarcasm obviously went over your head. When I talked about a couple of guys in a tavern talking about the Pacific Northwest Militia, I figured, wrongly so, that you’d have enough sense to see the irony in that.

  115. sumyungboi says:

    That’s the problem, bandito, and you can’t even see it. The lefts every argument is based on the premise that those who don’t agree with them are dumb. The left spends most of their time in personal attacks on their political oppenents, mostly mocking their intelligence.

    Most on the right, on the other hand, begin not by personal attacks or mocking leftists as idiots, but by regarding them as misguided and / or lacking the life’s experiences to make informed decisions.

    The right, for the most part, believes that leftists can be shown the truth, or through experience, will convert themselves to be more conservative than they are now.

    The left, for the most part, believes that righties are stupid and need to be forced to live the way that leftists believe they should live.

    Interesting to note, also, and pick your point in time, the younger generation tend to be more liberal and progressive, while the older generation tend to be more conservative. I shouldn’t need to ‘splain why. And as a sidenote, it’s funny how, since the dawn of time, the young’uns have _always_ figured that they’re smarter, that they have become privy to some enlightened view that the countless generations before them just didn’t get. :)

  116. penumbrage says:

    xring – I carry in churches because ANY location not very many people carry at makes that place almost as attractive a killing ground as a posted gun free zone. Thankfully, the guy who put down the shooter a couple of months ago at the church in Aurora after only one victim agrees with me.

  117. beerBoy says:

    The letter writer believes that those who don’t agree with his point of view are dumb.

    Can you tell me what the letter writer’s point of view is? Other than he doesn’t think mass shootings in public places aren’t good?

  118. beerBoy says:

    double negative not proper sentence structure….please disregard the word “aren’t”.

  119. sumyungboi says:

    bb, his point of view is inferred by his lamentation and paranoia. Of course, you’re only being difficult. I do sort of long for the good old days when people simply described what they saw, rather than play amateur lawyer and argue over what “is” means.

  120. penumbrage says:

    bB – “Can you point to ONE mass shooting incident where deaths were prevented by a citizen who had a concealed gun on the scene?”

    How do you tell how many people would have died had the shooter not been stopped? Do you count the rounds the shooter had left?
    Do you assume the Aurora church shooter I mentioned to xring would have continued firing till his gun was empty?
    Does the vice-principle who had to run 6 blocks, get his gun from his trunk and run back to stop the school shooter and hold him for police count since he obeyed the misguided ‘Gun Free Zone’ rule and his concealed gun wasn’t actually on the scene?
    Does it count when McKown confronted Maldonado at the Tacoma Mall and converted a mass shooting spree into a negotiable hostage situation?
    Do you assume some percentage of the dozens of justified CWP shootings or the hundreds of citizen justified homicides or the 100,000 reported nonfatal uses of a firearm to stop a crime (with surveys and estimates indicating unreported uses are 10 to 20 times higher) statistically managed to stop some mass shooting sprees?

  121. Sonic14 says:

    “Can you point to ONE mass shooting incident where deaths were prevented by a citizen who had a concealed gun on the scene?”

    “Guard saved untold lives, officials say
    She stopped gunman Matthew Murray, who killed four in a rampage at two Colorado religious facilities.

    Assam hid and inched toward the gunman, Matthew Murray, as dozens of terrified worshipers fled. She waited until he got close enough, revealed herself, aimed her pistol and fired. Murray dropped to the ground. He was carrying an assault rifle, two pistols and a backpack holding more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition.”


    Ironically it was at a church.

  122. beerBoy says:

    his point of view is inferred

    I think when you have to infer what the point of a letter to the editor is, it probably should not have been published.

  123. beerBoy says:

    Sonic’s citation leads me to speculate….what the heck is going on in Colorado?

    My point on my mostly rhetorical question is this – supporting the 2nd Amendment that a citizen (not a guard on duty) with a gun who may or may not have stopped another citizen with a gun from killing more innocent people is not a good argument to support the Right to bear arms. It is speculative at best and I find the argument rather annoying as it assumes that having a gun puts an S on your chest and a cape around your neck.

  124. bbsbxringrliars says:

    bB It is speculative at best and I find the argument rather annoying as it assumes that having a brain makes you smarter than the rest of us and puts a PhD behind your name…You analyze what others believe than you ridicule them…

  125. Sonic14 says:

    Just to clarify she wasn’t a paid guard. She was a member of the church volunteering as security for the church and she had a concealed weapons permit.

  126. beerBoy says:

    Oh look….a parody name is criticizing me.

    I do wish parents would monitor what their children are doing on the computer….

  127. beerBoy says:

    sonic – thanks for the clarification.

    Still….there are better arguments to be made in support of gun ownership rights then the Superman saves the day one.

  128. sandblower says:

    pen baby, it makes no difference to us what the gun looks like. We are only suggesting a starting place that can be easily defined. Take the 1994 definitions and correct any errors.
    I would like to see how many people can do the revolver trick you mentioned and be sure to show the caliber.
    And as someone has said before, it is not so much the known criminals who have guns as it is the wrong people who have guns because of their easy availability. Can you get your mind around any of that yet?

  129. bbsbxringrliars says:

    This isn’t a parody but a belief, my parents have both passed away, and you’re still a smarmy…you get the picture…

  130. sandblower says:

    Some here ask why all law abiding gun owners need to suffer regulation when it is only a small group that abuses gun ownership?
    There are so many examples of why everyone comes under a regulation because others have decided to abuse the privilege that the question is one of ignorance.
    If we did not have regulations, idiots would prevail. Gun idiots are prevailing now and we need to get it stopped.

  131. bbsbxringrliars says:

    Again we pass a law, something is outlawed, somebody will then break the law…Repeat over and over again…How many laws do we have now? How many do you think we need 10, 20 or how about a 100? What is the definition again of insanity?..Keep passing laws and criminals will keep breaking them seems easy to understand, why can’t you…Oh that’s right you’re the idiots..

  132. sandblower says:

    If they do not have a gun they cannot become a gun criminal. Make it difficult to possess a gun. It is too easy now.
    Try thinking in the positive.

  133. sandblower says:

    The supremes did not make gun possession unequivocal. Reasonable rules and regulations are possible. I like single shot just as the guns of the revolution were. I’ll give you a cartridge, but one at a time please.

  134. sandblower says:

    What the goal should be for everyone on these pages is to reduce gun deaths. If you cannot agree on that, we have a problem whereby someone has to decide and make a bold move to make it happen. It is not unlike universal health care. Some people, even today, have a problem with that long overdue intelligent idea.
    Both meaningful gun control and universal health care are going to happen. It is only a matter of time.

  135. bbsbxringrliars says:

    God you are a stupid bas…give it a rest will you, you are wrong plain and simple…As far as guns are concerned how are you going collect them, register them, keep them out of the hands of criminals.. I won’t give mine up because you are wrong, I cannot trust you or people who think like you…How about rounding up the bad guys, there are a lot less of them…Who the hell are you to make these decisions for me, you are one arrogant son of a b….you’re a pompous ass…God it’s easy to dislike you…By the way, I AM smiling as I write this….Have a good night and besides it’s only a matter of time…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  136. Frosty – Combat Action Ribbon.

    Odd that a Marine knows about the CIB but a self-proclaimed dogface doesn’t know about the CAR. How many years where you in?

    Of course you also don’t know the difference between a liberal and a progressive which speaks volumes about you knowledge (that is to say lack of).

    ‘unlike assault rifle’ – nice cut and paste from Wikipedia.

    Do you have any original thoughts to add to the discussion?

    ‘carry In churches’ how many churches to you belong to? WWJS?

    Sumy – ‘lefts every argument‘ – And you know this because someone told you it was so.

    bBoy – parody name – remember the fruit does not fall far from the tree.

  137. bbsbxringrliars says:

    BB sb xring r liars, I’m not parodying you but it would be easy, I am telling it like it is. You don’t answer questions do you? Okay answer me this. Why should we trust you, why? You must be an elitist, an intelligentsia and we simple peasants, serfs who know not whats best for us. So please tell us again how you’re going to save us from our self’s…How I feel like puking.

  138. Thank you for proving why we let fools talk.

  139. bbsbxringrliars says:

    There you go again, no answers just smart ass remarks. I’ve noticed that when you have no answers, you fall back to calling names. I will see you later, guarantee it. I thank God for putting you here on Earth xring, you’re great example of his humorous nature, ever seen an aardvark, ugly but still one of his creatures, as are you. You’ve kept me in stitches, I almost peed my pants at times. So I will surely run into later, on another thread. Sweet dreams xring,have a goodnight.xoxoxo hahaha

  140. penumbrage says:

    bB – Not supermen, just people who’ve invested in the guns, mindsets and training to improve our chances of surviving a lethal threat.
    There is no ‘may or may not’ or ‘speculative’ about it, on the vanishingly rare occasions when insane mass shooters (0.0000001% of America) don’t choose safe ‘No Guns Allowed’ killing grounds and do manage to cross paths with CWPs (2% of America) you get the New Life Church shooting (where the unpaid congregation volunteer with a CWP killed the shooter and saved lives) or the Winnemucca bar shooting (where the CWP killed the shooter while he was reloading and saved lives) and even in the Tacoma Mall shooting (where the CWPs merely saved lives by converting a murder spree into a negotiable hostage situation) they failed to spray the crowd with bullets even though that restraint nearly cost one his life.

  141. beerBoy says:

    penumbrage – perhaps my label of the mindset would be more accurate if I used the term “Wild West defense” rather than Superman.

    Not arguing (here) for more gun control laws (though I think that the enforcement of existing regulations needs to be stepped up quite a bit). Merely pointing out that the promotion of unrestricted firearms is not really helped by pointing to madmen on shooting sprees as a reason why we need more guns. It is counter productive argumentation because – even if you are completely convinced that some spaghetti western Clint Eastwood with a gun will come in and save the town – those who aren’t convinced of your point still look at the gunslinger with his arsenal and wonder why it was made so easy for that loco to get all those shiny guns and ammo.

  142. penumbrage says:

    sandblower – “Take the 1994 definitions and correct any errors.”
    The error would be wasting time, effort, money and inconvenience on an ineffectual law addressing an insignificant fraction of the tools used instead of addressing the true problems.

    “What the goal should be for everyone on these pages is to reduce gun deaths.”
    Absolutely and totally wrong. Justifiable homicide laws are based on the fact that some people’s actions make it preferable to society that they die in order to save innocent lives. If the gun murder rate in your city drops from 500 a year to 400 due to disarming citizens but the number of innocent citizens shot dead rises from 200 a year to 300 a year, then you’ve lost ground and increased the danger to the public with your ‘public safety law’. The goal should be zero law abiding citizens killed regardless of how many life threatening criminals we lose. Can you get your mind around that or are you secretly some kind of criminal who makes his living with a gun just trying to improve your workplace safety?

  143. aislander says:

    A teenager in China killed nine and injured four in a knife attack…

  144. ” I’ve noticed that when you have no answers, you fall back to calling names.”

    ROFL – that’s hysterical, coming from the author of:

    “you’re still a smarmy…you get the picture…”

    “God you are a stupid bas…”

    “you’re the idiots”

    “you are one arrogant son of a b….you’re a pompous ass…”

    Thanks for such a great laugh!

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