Anti Gunner Wears Glock For Thirty Days

[Mike Curtis]

I posted a comment this morning, but it's "awaiting moderation" which you can bet means, waiting to make sure your comment is in line with our view, so it will most likely be canned. Here's my comment...

Great idea!!! Way to make your point! It's painfully obvious you have absolutely no plans of remaining impartial, but rather just use this "experiment" to further your anti-gun agenda. Since you just want to make a point, why not "accidentally" shoot one of the gun carriers you see in Starbucks next time you go? That'll show 'em the gun laws need to change! Heck, you may even get Starbucks to change their view as well. Man, think of all the birds you'll kill with that stone... You'll get to "off" a likely NRA member like so many Brady Camp folks have called for, you may change a law and prevent a battered woman from being able to protect herself from an abusive ex, you may get Starbucks to stop supporting right to carry, man the list goes on. And you can just say, golly gee, it was an accident! See, I told you guns were bad! Ah heck, who am I kidding? We all know you are no risk of having a negligent discharge, because I guarantee you didn't even buy any bullets for it. Keep up the great work!

 

[gejoslin]

This is what posted but is still awaiting moderation

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
All the women that I know had someone teach them which end of the gun to point at the target. With great power comes great responsibility. If a person wants or needs a self defence weapon they should have enough training to be able to protect themselves. Or what’s the point? Just because a person can doesn’t mean they should. If they’re too afraid to even have a sidearm then the chances that they would use one to protect themselves or their kids is very small.
But if a person really needs one for protection from an abusive husband or rapist, isn’t it a good thing that getting one is easy. If it was hard to get one you could be dead before you could take possession of your protection. You were talking about your thoughts of mass deranged shooters killing people in a Starbucks, if you were there you could stop the killer long before the police showed up! The deranged mass killers do their dirty deed in Gun Free Zone because all the law abiding citizens are disarmed. There isn’t anyone with a gun to stop him!

I know it'll never get posted. I don't fit their agenda. :fie:

 

[Bigcarlover]

Many of the comments have so much fail I can't begin.

But not surprising considering most are her Brady friends. (Hey write and article and tell all your fellow activists to validate it with comments, right?)

Bob Bates, is probably the same one linked to the Brady Campaign.

And I'm guessing "Shikha" (an uncommon name) is Shikha Hamilton another Brady member.
http://www.leagle.com/decision-result/?xmldoc/2004407339FSupp2d68_1402.xml/docbase/CSLWAR2-1986-2006

Then there's Ted Zocco-Hochhalter
zocco « Search Results « It Can Happen Here

Joan Peterson
Another Gun Blog: Guess I'm "Unnatural"

 

[S&W645]

I think her article serves a valid purpose - exposing how easy it is for any idiot in her state to get a gun and a concealed carry permit with no requirement other than a background check. And I'm positive there's many more like her that do it, carry it, don't get any training, and don't write about it. I for one wouldn't assume most people who buy guns and carry them concealed are at all responsible, intelligent, moral or possess any of the other qualities we like to think they have.

Here in Florida all I had to do for a concealed carry permit was show I had some accepted training. In my case that was a DD214 showing an honorable discharge some 40+ years ago.

Regards
Michael

First off, welcome fellow Floridian.
Now comes the major question. Did you forget what you learned while in the military that got you to the point of getting a DD214? If you learned how to handle the guns then, have you forgotten all the safety rules now, 40 years later? Some of us have been taught how to handle guns safely enough that we can pass an NRA basic pistol class test without even cracking a book. Same thing has applied to my having a hazardous materials endorsement on our drivers licenses. When taught correctly, you don't unlearn the material. Dad also had retired 42 years ago but during his time in ( 1946 to 1971 ) he had had to stay qualified on the 1911. Even at age 83 he could still out shoot me with my own PT1911. And he didn't even like that gun at first. Not because of the make but because of the 3 dot sights. He was use to the typical mil-spec sights.

 

[S&W645]

This is what posted but is still awaiting moderation

I know it'll never get posted. I don't fit their agenda. :fie:

http://lonelymachines.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/feinstein_tactical_reload.jpg She is of the same ilk as DiFi.

 

[gunnerbob]

I tried making some informative and intelligently insulting comments to some of the dumber replies but the moderator quickly removed my posts... that's too funny!

 

[S&W645]

I tried making some informative and intelligently insulting comments to some of the dumber replies but the moderator quickly removed my posts... that's too funny!

Trouble maker!................. :biggrin:

 

[FTG-05]

I'd be more inclined to follow this if she posed with her new pistol in a bikini.

No you don't: I've seen her pics from the thread on Arfcom.

I think her article serves a valid purpose - exposing how easy it is for any idiot in her state to get a gun and a concealed carry permit with no requirement other than a background check. And I'm positive there's many more like her that do it, carry it, don't get any training, and don't write about it. I for one wouldn't assume most people who buy guns and carry them concealed are at all responsible, intelligent, moral or possess any of the other qualities we like to think they have.

Here in Florida all I had to do for a concealed carry permit was show I had some accepted training. In my case that was a DD214 showing an honorable discharge some 40+ years ago.

Regards
Michael

If you don't believe in the 2nd amendment, why are you on a gun board? Sounds you would be far more at home where the author hangs out at i.e. The Brady Bunch.

BTW, if someone states that your post is "drivel", it's not a compliment. (And it was drivel, BTW - no offense).

 

[ezkl2230]

There's no mention in the blog post whether "Tony" was the gun shop owner or not, but whether he was or wasn't, it wasn't his responsibility (or even within his authority) to demand she quantify her knowledge of firearms before making her purchase.



I could agree that a nice thing to do would have been to offer her advice there on the spot, or where to get training if he didn't have time to help her right then, but had he offered, she would've turned him down because her whole point was to meet the minimum requirements to carry for the next 30 days. Seems rather harsh to blame a cop on the beat for not doing what she would not have accepted even if he had.



I have little doubt that "Tony" would've happily done the same thing had the manipulative, phony, anti-gun activist before him simply asked. She had no more interest in asking the counter-help for instruction than she did the cop though. Her whole point was to avoid any instruction that would make her more qualified than the bumbling, murderous, trigger-happy fools she perceives all of us to be.



It can get worse than that, actually. Several years ago I was hired for an armed guard position for a new account with a contract company. They were hiring, orientating and training the whole 16-person crew at the same time. So we get to the range to qualify (using 10 whole rounds!!!), and this one lady not only could not rack the slide on the Glock 22, she literally blew two holes in the rafters of the range, and they still passed her! There were two former sheriffs deputies qualifying that day, and several of us, myself included, had years of both concealed carry and other armed security experience, so imagine my surprise when, on the first shift I pulled at the new account, I was introduced to this lady as the graveyard shift supervisor! Seems she had a semester or three of criminal justice in college, plus a couple of other umm....circumstances....that moved her to the head of the line, so there it was, we were being supervised by someone who would've had to ask one of her subordinates to load her weapon if they weren't passed from shift to shift already loaded.



That's a very convoluted theory of what the 2nd Amendment says. It harkens back to the days before Heller where gun-grabbers tried to limit individuals' access to guns because they weren't part of the militia (the ol' "collective right vs. individual right" meme). Heller settled that issue once and for all - it is unquestionably an individual right. The militia part is simply an introductory preface to the meat of the matter, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The preface gave the reason why the individual right was necessary, because individuals would muster in furtherance of militia activity with their own weapons in tow. Once mustered, it was up to militia hierarchy to determine training standards, having nothing whatsoever to do with how well trained each individual armed citizen was when they were at home or otherwise away from militia duty.

Yours is the first analysis of 2A meaning(s) I've ever heard that concludes that it, "...also says that the person who takes advantage of that right must be well disciplined in the use of those firearms." I contend that is grossly erroneous compared to any legal analysis available today. I would contend further that "well regulated" and "well disciplined" have separate and distinct meanings for each phrase, and that "well trained in firearms" is not necessarily synonymous with either.

Blues

My so-called "analysis" of the Second Amendment is no such thing. It is merely an observation that the Second Amendment requires discipline which, in turn, requires training. Merely owning a firearm is not enough; the owner must train himself to be proficient if they wish to abide by the spirit of the amendment, just as training and discipline is required of the citizen militia in order for it to be effective.

 

[mmn]

First off, welcome fellow Floridian.
Now comes the major question. Did you forget what you learned while in the military that got you to the point of getting a DD214? If you learned how to handle the guns then, have you forgotten all the safety rules now, 40 years later?

I suspect your question is rhetorical, and it's not really relevant to the subject of the thread. So at the risk of being "moderated" I'll answer any way.

No.

Regards
Michael

 

[gejoslin]

I suspect your question is rhetorical, and it's not really relevant to the subject of the thread. So at the risk of being "moderated" I'll answer any way.

No.

Regards
Michael

Luke doesn't "moderate" here unless the person is constantly cursing the other posters.
Just sayin'

 

[mmn]

If you don't believe in the 2nd amendment, why are you on a gun board? Sounds you would be far more at home where the author hangs out at i.e. The Brady Bunch.

BTW, if someone states that your post is "drivel", it's not a compliment. (And it was drivel, BTW - no offense).

Don't quite get where I said or implied I don't believe in the 2nd amendment, or why you thought that I thought calling my post "drivel" was a compliment. That word is actually quite offensive (if you look it up).

There have been I think three posts regarding my original post. They all indicate some level of misunderstanding, but to go into it would sort of derail the original topic.

To the topic, what I was trying to say was:

1. While it is the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (and I support that), I would like to see some tightening in laws regarding training for concealed carry, particularly in states such as hers which seem to have none.

2. Though it's not part of her agenda, I think the article points out just how easy it is, in some states, to legally carry a lethal weapon with no training in public. I think that's not a good thing.

While you can disagree with a post, calling it drivel is a judgment that I do find offensive.

So there!

Michael

 

[BC1]

I went to the article and posted a very nice response in response to the claim that those with a gun are more likely to die from their own gun. I gave them the stats from the justice department They refused to post the response. Hammer them with responses... My Month With a Gun: Week One

 

[Nightmare45]

This idiot will end up in prison, thanks for thinning the herd moron.

 

[escapedthematrix]

Update: Checked this morning at 9:34am Central Time and unfortunately both of my posts that were awaiting moderation did not make the cut... Didn't fit the "agenda". What have you all found?

 

[JimTh]

Purchasing a firearm and obtaining a concealed carry permit should be easy. Idiots like the gal should be barred from entering the United States.

 

[gejoslin]

Been 8 days now and still she hasn't posted week 2. I don't think there will be anymore posts.

 

[carracer]

My post didn't make it past moderation either. I thanked her for being open minded and volunteered to pay for training classes for both her and her husband. Either in the Boise area or the class of their choice in the Vancouver/Portland area. I'm also thinking there will be no more articles as the agenda was going the wrong direction for her.

 

[BluesStringer]

My so-called "analysis" of the Second Amendment is no such thing. It is merely an observation that the Second Amendment requires discipline which, in turn, requires training. Merely owning a firearm is not enough; the owner must train himself to be proficient if they wish to abide by the spirit of the amendment, just as training and discipline is required of the citizen militia in order for it to be effective.

I have rarely, if ever, been tempted to say this in reply to anything you have ever posted, but that is utter bunk.

If you were to say that acquiring qualified and comprehensive training is a damned good idea that should be recommended and supported by all experienced gun-owners for all beginners, I would agree wholeheartedly. But to make it sound as though the 2nd Amendment mandates a requirement to same is not supportable by any reading of it, "spirit of the law" or otherwise, or of the documentation (Federalist Papers) describing its purpose and functions. "Spirit" is meaningless. The true and provable meanings of the words are what gives it its power and authority.

Blues

 

[The_Outlaw]

I think her article serves a valid purpose - exposing how easy it is for any idiot in her state to get a gun and a concealed carry permit with no requirement other than a background check. And I'm positive there's many more like her that do it, carry it, don't get any training, and don't write about it. I for one wouldn't assume most people who buy guns and carry them concealed are at all responsible, intelligent, moral or possess any of the other qualities we like to think they have.

Here in Florida all I had to do for a concealed carry permit was show I had some accepted training. In my case that was a DD214 showing an honorable discharge some 40+ years ago.

Regards
Michael

Her article serves no purpose other than to promote a clearly Biased, LibTarded Anti-Gun Agenda.

You bloviated;

"I for one wouldn't assume most people who buy guns and carry them concealed are at all responsible, intelligent, moral or possess any of the other qualities we like to think they have.
Here in Florida all I had to do for a concealed carry permit was show I had some accepted training. In my case that was a DD214 showing an honorable discharge some 40+ years ago."

It appears to me that you assume a lot.

Please stop 'Assuming' anything about those of us who 'legally' purchase and responsibly carry firearms....
because people like you who 'Assume' make an 'A_$$' out of both 'U' and 'Me'.

As a supposed 'Veteran' you should be familar with the do's and don'ts of carrying a firearm.

A DD214 that shows an Honorable Discharge is good enough in my book.
I'm seriously doubting that you really are an honorably discharged veteran.

I'm beginning to sense that 'the troll is strong with this one'.

Just my .02 cents.

~Regards~
~Outlaw~