published Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

The 2nd Amendment

Follow Clay Bennett on Facebook

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

151
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
trburrows said...

this is great. i love it. bring it on alprova. i am ready for your bs.

January 23, 2011 at 12:13 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Whatever the U.S. military has in its arsenal should be legal for all citizens. "A well regulated militia," had nothing to do with skeet shooting or deer hunting. It had to do with individual States having the right to maintain fighting forces that were capable of turning back a military incursion launched by the Federal Government.

It's part of the original covenant - or Bill - of rights.

I can't wait to get a plasma cannon mounted on the hood of my car. I'll be opening up traffic jams like Moses parting the Red Sea.

January 23, 2011 at 12:26 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Clay is throwing us some red meat so I'll get us off to a hot start.

Guns are an irrational over-reaction that cause more problems than they could ever solve. Unfortunately we are in the sway of group and linear thought patterns that won't be redirected until negative consequences envelope us.

Does being a lonely voice against guns mean I'm wrong or just early?

January 23, 2011 at 12:26 a.m.
alprova said...

trburrows wrote: "this is great. i love it. bring it on alprova. i am ready for your bs."


You're first ASSumption is probably that I would argue against gun ownership. I wouldn't, as I am a card carrying NRA member and have been one for most of my adult life.

Unfortunately, I am not in full agreement with all other NRA members, in that I don't think there is any good reason to possess certain types of firearms. That would include those designed to be used in military or law enforcement applications.

Now you know where I stand.

No offense, but I am not about to waste my time arguing with someone with as little intelligence as you have demonstrated in possessing.

I don't toy with trolls.

January 23, 2011 at 12:31 a.m.
trburrows said...

alprova you have educated me to the fact that you are not anti american. i am sorry i took the stand that you were. you will never get a note from me again. thanks trburrows

January 23, 2011 at 12:36 a.m.
acerigger said...

If you're afraid that "they're gonna take my guns away",why would you tell "them" who you are,where you live,and how many guns you have? As unlikely as this scenario is, I'm sure "they" would have no problem "prying your gun from your cold dead fingers"! I think there's just too much fear-mongering over this whole "debate". Maybe when the black man leaves the Whitehouse, these folks can chill out a little.

January 23, 2011 at 12:52 a.m.
trburrows said...

nucanuck you will be the first one to cry help when you are robed at gun point.

January 23, 2011 at 12:53 a.m.
alprova said...

Blackwater48 wrote: "It had to do with individual States having the right to maintain fighting forces that were capable of turning back a military incursion launched by the Federal Government."


I have no doubt that the 2nd Amendment had everything to do with defending each of our individual states, and allowing them to adopt their own rules in regard to such defense, but I don't think the intent was to prevent the United States Government from attacking any of the States.

Ah...but the United States Government did attack the states, but was it right or wrong for them to do so? Opinions vary.

And as time has gone by, State militias have all but disappeared and have been defunded and turned over to the United States Military.

So many would argue, and correctly I might add, that people no longer have that 2nd Amendment protection or any State requirement to be armed, as there are no more state militias. State militias disbanded after the Civil War.

I'm rather confident that if a vote were held, asking the American people if law abiding citizens should be allowed to have weapons in the home for protection, I think it would pass with a wide majority.

I also think if a vote were held, asking the people if anyone needs to have weapons in the home, capable of discharging rounds of ammunition so quickly, that it would decimate a human being, or that could cause widespread damage, that the majority of people would vote to prohibit them.

January 23, 2011 at 12:53 a.m.
trburrows said...

dad gum acerigger you hit it right on.

January 23, 2011 at 12:55 a.m.
alprova said...

trburrows wrote: "alprova, you have educated me to the fact that you are not anti american. i am sorry i took the stand that you were. you will never get a note from me again. thanks"


Ok...Peace then?

January 23, 2011 at 12:55 a.m.
trburrows said...

I do not agree with 12:53 am

January 23, 2011 at 12:59 a.m.
alprova said...

nucanuck wrote: "Does being a lonely voice against guns mean I'm wrong or just early?"


You're not wrong.

I would prefer to live in a world without violent people and around people without the means to be violent and/or deadly. Unfortunately, we are way beyond that and I doubt it will ever change.

January 23, 2011 at 12:59 a.m.
trburrows said...

nucanuck wrote: "Does being a lonely voice against guns mean I'm wrong or just early?"


what makes you think you are lonely?

January 23, 2011 at 1:02 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Nucanuck wrote, "Does being a lonely voice against guns mean I'm wrong or just early?"

The only thing it means for sure is that you're a night person, but I think you might be looking at this all wrong.

Try looking at the Second Amendment from the other point of view. Imagine how a gun nut "thinks." Narrow your horizons. Give war a chance.

Don't you have a pesky neighbor or infuriating in-law that would be less of a nuisance if you owned a grenade launcher?

Wouldn't driving be less stressful if every time another drive cut you off you could just open up with an Uzi?

I believe many answers to everyday problems could be found in Second Amendment remedies.

You might as well give in. 10,000 Americans are shot to death every year. 100,000 more are wounded every year. 27 gun homicides in America every single day.

No one is shocked because everyone is numb. Shooting someone to death is as American as apple pie and baseball.

Give in, Nucanuck. Embrace the darkness.

January 23, 2011 at 1:03 a.m.
alprova said...

acerigger wrote: "I think there's just too much fear-mongering over this whole "debate". Maybe when the black man leaves the Whitehouse, these folks can chill out a little."


I'm surprised you wrote that. I may be misunderstanding it, but I'm not sure that I agree with it, on the surface.

President Obama has gone on record many times over the past four years, in favor of private gun ownership.

As to why some people seem to have an alternative perception of the man and his attitude on the issue, the words "completely paranoid at all times" come to mind.

January 23, 2011 at 1:04 a.m.
acerigger said...

My point exactly Al! PARANOIA RULES in this country at the moment.

January 23, 2011 at 1:12 a.m.
trburrows said...

President Obama has gone on record many times over the past four years, in favor of private gun ownership.

this is crap/bs

January 23, 2011 at 1:16 a.m.
nucanuck said...

alprova,

I refuse to accept that we are too far into violence and guns that we can't reverse course. The will of the people is all powerful and should the people ever decide that the violence must stop,then we will find a way.

In the meantime there will not be a firearm in my home under any circumstances that I can foresee. I'm making a stand,even if it's lonely.

January 23, 2011 at 1:30 a.m.
trburrows said...

alprova,

I refuse to accept that we are too far into violence and guns that we can't reverse course. The will of the people is all powerful and should the people ever decide that the violence must stop,then we will find a way.

In the meantime there will not be a firearm in my home under any circumstances that I can foresee. I'm making a stand,even if it's lonely.

this is stupid and insane. do you know what built america? do you know what your ancestors did for you? why dont you roll over and die.

January 23, 2011 at 1:44 a.m.
acerigger said...

Nucanuck, such is your right,just don't move to Kennesaw,Ga.,there you're required by law to own a gun.

January 23, 2011 at 1:46 a.m.
acerigger said...

trburrows,attacking someone who holds a different view than yourself, is that the American way?

January 23, 2011 at 1:50 a.m.
trburrows said...

acern igger

no one is attacking, if you have a view point that is different then it should be defended. alprova is full of it and it shows.

January 23, 2011 at 2:03 a.m.
acerigger said...

why dont you roll over and die. Username: trburrows | On: January 23, 2011 at 1:44 a.m.

sounds like an attack to me, if not, my apologies.

January 23, 2011 at 2:29 a.m.
acerigger said...

BTW, Alprova did not post that. Blame Nucanuck.

January 23, 2011 at 2:31 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Blackwater - Yes, the Constitution is a covenant. Covenants are promises that bind both parties. In that context, the Constituion specifies not only the "Bill of Rights", but also a "Bill of Responsibilities". Responsible citizenship is a duty.

January 23, 2011 at 7 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Congress has power to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" (Art. 1 Sec 8), which are licenses to operate private war ships. In A.D. 1787 war ships were the most advanced weapon system on the planet (unless you call armies or nations weapons systems). Private citizens were allowed to own war ships. I see Rep. Ron Paul has suggested we license private ships to tackle Somali pirates. (Not sure there'd be much profit in it.)

The 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note "shall not be infringed." Note "security of a free State." Note "free." I think it's intended to secure our freedom by making sure the mass of citizens as a whole (not murderers like Loughner) can outgun the government, so that tyranny is impossible. Like a slightly risky innoculation (on that topic, my kids have their shots).

ace, everyone hates the Dred Scott decision, sight unseen--I haven't read it either--but I think one of its points was that, oh horrors, if blacks can be citizens then they'll have the right to keep and bear arms! I don't care about our President's color or Gov. Palin's gender; I care about their policies.

Clay, expressive faces (at least by your standards, which I suppose work for you).

January 23, 2011 at 7:08 a.m.
jimbob said...

Good one Clay and might I just say some very good posts. I am a member of the NRA as is my wife and daughter. we all have coceled gun permits. I like to hunt,my wife likes to go to the firing range for pratice. All of us have taken gun handling and gun saftey courses. Let us rember one thing God,Guns and Guts made this country free. Let us keep all three.

January 23, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.
woody said...

Clay infers.."The constitution doesn't stipulate what kind of arms we may bear...." And therein lies the problem.

Since the framers lived in the era of muskets they had no clue as to how advanced (that may not be the correct word, but for the sake of argument I'll let it stand)the world of arms would become several hundred years into the future. No more than we could predict several hundred more years ahead.

I have no problem with gun owners or enthusiasts, although I do believe their arguments for owning as many as they may be able to afford and the various types of weapons they feel they have the explicit right to own are a bit of a stretch.

And before, as has been evidenced above, anyone says I'll be the first to wish there is a gun owner around should I find myself in some sort of trouble. All I can say is, don't hold your breath. If I am ever in a situation where my two hands, two feet and sound mind can't get me out of, you may be sure I'll be going to a 'better place'.

Not that it will make a lot of difference here, but I will end this with a quote from a Harry Carey role from days gone by. His character stated, "Only a man who carries a gun ever needs a gun."

Smiling satisfactorily, Woody

January 23, 2011 at 7:39 a.m.
hambone said...

If the only reason you have guns is because you fear your government, then you should seek professional help!

The paranoid can be treated!

January 23, 2011 at 8:10 a.m.
jimbob said...

hambone, I do not fear you or the goverment.

January 23, 2011 at 8:38 a.m.
delmar said...

trburrows: "this is stupid and insane. do you know what built america? do you know what your ancestors did for you? why dont you roll over and die."

Pretty harsh. Maybe your gun rights should be revoked judging from these statements.

January 23, 2011 at 9:01 a.m.
Francis said...

the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with the crime rate. law abiding citizens are not the problem. criminals aren't going to check what the gun laws are before they commit a crime.

this cartoon is another one commissioned by the democrat party.

the guy has a pickup and a gun rack and he kind of looks like a hunter.

there's an nra sticker on this truck.

it's propaganda against the nra, hunters and those who own guns.....

to think by taking guns away from law abiding citizens the crime rate will suddenly disapear is idiocy..which is par for the course for most of the democrat party agenda..

to think abortion, which is clearly used as a method of birth control, is less damaging to our society than guns owned by law abiding citizens speaks to why the democrat party is in the state it's in.

i guarantee that if obama could find a way, and still remain popular, to take aways the second ammendment he would....i know he would.

he's no friend of the constitution...he's about trying to find more ways for the government to do things to us instead of us being protected from the government...

January 23, 2011 at 9:14 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Trborrows 1:16 -

"... We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns..." President Obama (FactCheck.org)

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen.." Sen. Obama (FactCheck.org)

Have a great day!

January 23, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.
Francis said...

bennett is portraying anyone who is a member of the nra, believes in the 2nd ammendment, drives a pickup, has a gun rack and is a hunter as a possible nut...and most likely the cause of the problem with the violence in this country..

there is no other interpretation....

so jimbob, how can you say that's a "good one"?.. ...based on your description of how you and your family live........what's good about?

it's just a tool of the democrat party(bennett) perpetuating a stereotype...nothing more...

January 23, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Francis wrote "the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with the crime rate."

Remember this quote, I'm sure it will come up later in this discussion arguing to that it helps keep the crime rate down.

January 23, 2011 at 9:44 a.m.
ITguy said...

The point is that common sense dictates that there must be some restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. Those who believe that the average citizen should have access to the same weapons that the military has, are delusional. If you think that the citizens of this country will ever resort to 'Second Amendment solutions' to overthrow our government, then you need to take a reality check.

If we can start with agreement that some restrictions are necessary, then we can begin to draft meaningful legislation. However, the NRA has firmly held the position that any restriction is a slippery slop that will lead to confiscation of all guns.

January 23, 2011 at 9:50 a.m.
bret said...

ITguy beat me to the punch. Does anyone think we should all have the right to possess nuclear weapons? Of course not.

"Oh, that's different," they say. Well, why is it different?

So now that we all agree that government does have the right to draw the line somewhere, the only question is where that line should be drawn.

January 23, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
bret said...

SeaSmokie59er, Please refrain from interjecting actual facts into the discussion. You'll just confuse the paranoid wingnuts.

Someone mentioned that phony law in Kennesaw, GA that was passed many years ago requiring everyone to own guns. That resolution has never been enforced and not one person has ever been arrested in Kennesaw for not owning a weapon.

We will often hear the pro-gun side claim that this law reduced the crime rate in Kennesaw, which is also false. (How could it reduce the crime rate if it was never enforced?) The fact is that the number of gun crimes in Kennesaw is much greater today than it was when the phony resolution was passed, but not because of anything to do with the gun law. The number of gun crimes (and all other crimes) is higher today simply because the population has exploded down there.
However, because the population (which is mostly upper/middle class and statistically less likely to commit crimes) has grown much faster than the number of gun crimes has risen, the crime "rate" has actually gone down slightly. And this is what we hear from the gun nuts ... "the gun law in Kennesaw reduced crime!" No, it didn't.

January 23, 2011 at 10:22 a.m.
acerigger said...

"acern igger"

no one is attacking, if you have a view point that is different then it should be defended. alprova is full of it and it shows." Username: trburrows | On: January 23, 2011 at 2:03 a.m.

How cute tr! You slipped that one right by the moderators.

Maybe you'll win the Ray Cyst Award, you can hang it in your bigo tree.

January 23, 2011 at 10:26 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Yawn

Anybody have anything new to add since this one ten days ago?

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jan/13/guns-and-ammo/?opinioncartoons

186 comments.

Didn't think so - enjoy your day

January 23, 2011 at 10:40 a.m.
nucanuck said...

trBurrows has amply demonstrated that his hating ability exceeds his thinking ability...a problem all too common.

January 23, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
alprova said...

trburrows wrote: "alprova is full of it and it shows."


And you just attained the status as another Richard Cranium on a troll mission.

I suspect that this is another sock puppet of the resident trollster.

I thought you were "ready" for this debate. You're not going to gain any ground by simply sticking out your tongue at me and declaring that I am "full of it."

Please grow up or at least grow a brain.

January 23, 2011 at 11:11 a.m.
alprova said...

Bret wrote: "Someone mentioned that phony law in Kennesaw, GA that was passed many years ago requiring everyone to own guns. That resolution has never been enforced and not one person has ever been arrested in Kennesaw for not owning a weapon."


True, but the publicity surrounding the ordinance absolutely and positively did cause a substantial drop in property crimes overnight. That has been documented.


"We will often hear the pro-gun side claim that this law reduced the crime rate in Kennesaw, which is also false. (How could it reduce the crime rate if it was never enforced?)"


The simple fact is that a criminal will likely avoid any situation that poses a danger to themselves. They prey on the weak and the unarmed. Gun or no gun, enforced or not enforced, home burglaries went almost to zip overnight.

And a quick check reveals that the rate of all property crimes in Kennesaw, Ga. are STILL about half the national rate.


"The fact is that the number of gun crimes in Kennesaw is much greater today than it was when the phony resolution was passed, but not because of anything to do with the gun law."


Kennesaw is currently ranked 21 out of 173 cities in the state of Georgia in terms of their overall crime rate. The top 20 are very small cities for sure, most located in rural areas of the state.

In terms of violent crime, Kennesaw doesn't come close to that of cities that are located around the same area of the state. The reasons for that can certainly be debated, but it is what it is. Kennesaw is an upscale community in terms of income per capita.

Reducing property crimes was the target in 1982 when the ordinance was passed, and it worked.


"The number of gun crimes (and all other crimes) is higher today simply because the population has exploded down there."


Where are you getting any information that "gun crimes" are higher now than they were? Gun crimes are not a tracked statistic, to the best of my knowledge. They are lumped in the "violent crime" category, and it is still very low in Kennesaw.

Kennesaw is one of the safest cities to live in among the suburbs of Atlanta. The reasons and the root causes that it is safe could be debated for years, but the gun ownership ordinance was responsible for quite some time in keeping down all crime statistics for many years. What effect it is having today on crime rates is pure speculation.

January 23, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.
sd said...

Nuclear missiles don't kill people, Clay. Physics kills people.

And anyway, where's the launcher for that thing? This 'toon is very unrealistic.

January 23, 2011 at 11:56 a.m.
alprova said...

acerigger wrote: "How cute tr! You slipped that one right by the moderators."


I caught that one too. There's no need for that kind of crap.

I nominate him or her for the troll list effective immediately. And I'm going to be nominating the post to be removed for the racial slur that was obviously intended.

January 23, 2011 at 11:57 a.m.
tderng said...

liberals talk about the second amendment being outdated and the rights to bear arms is no longer needed "because there are no state militias any more.Maybe not,but if one were needed,without the right to keep and bear arms we would be s%#t out of luck. There would be no way for the populace to stop the government from a complete take-over.On a side note when asked why Russia didn't just invade the U.S. since they had a bigger army and just as many or more nukes Kruschev said only two words,"duck hunters".In other words the fact that there are so many citizens with firearms it is impossible for a foreign power to invade because there would be too many "state militias".

January 23, 2011 at 12:01 p.m.
Francis said...

you're a communist troll, alprova.

and the rest of you...

there is no logic in taking guns away from law abiding citizens...they're not the problem. say you eliminate the 2nd amendment somehow...no one can own a gun, all guns are confiscated from the citizens who owned them... then what? do you honestly believe the crime rate will go down? do you honestly believe criminals will give up their guns and not have access to any...if you do..you're dumber than a donkey. there's nothing wrong with the law or the 2nd ammendment....

the police have guns and criminals have guns.....and that's a better situation?

you libs on here...you confiscatory ***holes..who want to take away guns, income and property from people...but have no problem forcing them to purchase health inurance and have abortions at will....don't deserve to call yourselves americans...you're facists or communists....

you come here and offer elaborate and ludicrous arguments as to why we should be happy to be less free and subserviant to the government. bunch of cocktail weenie spined anti-american dumb asses impressed by your sophistry........you deserve to live in some crappy totalitarian regime rather than in america.

January 23, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.
alprova said...

acerigger wrote: "My point exactly Al! PARANOIA RULES in this country at the moment."


Thanks for clearing that up. I was kinda sure that's what you were driving at, but what you wrote could be taken a couple of different ways.

January 23, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.
hambone said...

jimbob says, "I don't fear you or the govenment"

Then your not paranoid jimbob!

But that doesn't automatically mean there ain't someone out to get your a$$!

January 23, 2011 at 12:15 p.m.
Hoppergrasser said...

We have become a nation with a gun mentality !¡!

Take your gun to church, McDonalds and Kroger. Carry a gun wherever you go. You just don't know when you might hear something you don't agree with from a member of Congress. Think about it !¡!

January 23, 2011 at 12:45 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Francis 9:15 am wrote - "the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with the crime rate"

Francis 12:03 pm wrote - "eliminate the 2nd amendment somehow...do you honestly believe the crime rate will go down?

January 23, 2011 at 1:08 p.m.
delmar said...

Just so I'm clear on the debate of gun ownership. Who has said that they were going to take anybodies guns away? I'm pretty sure that is not the issue. Please enlighten me.

There are folks on this forum that keep going on about someone taking away their guns. Did I sleep through something?

Perhaps, also, someone can explain the fascination with guns to me so that I can better understand why some folks get so excited when the subject of gun reform laws or gun control is mentioned... Seriously, I want to understand.

January 23, 2011 at 1:12 p.m.
alprova said...

nucanuck wrote: "I refuse to accept that we are too far into violence and guns that we can't reverse course. The will of the people is all powerful and should the people ever decide that the violence must stop,then we will find a way."


The reason I say what I say is simply because law abiding people would abide by the law, for the most part. Those who do not abide by the law would continue their lawless ways.

The old saying is that "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." There's a lot of truth to that, and added to that would be those who fervently feel that they are entitled to own guns.

I don't fear those who want to own a gun for protection. I do fear those who brandish them as tools of their trade, as career criminals.


"In the meantime there will not be a firearm in my home under any circumstances that I can foresee. I'm making a stand,even if it's lonely."


At one time, I felt the same way you do.

One day, a man followed my wife home and threatened her for what turned out to be his ill-informed perception regarding a traffic rule.

My wife made it to the front door, where she has always kept a very sturdy butcher knife, just in case. We are located well in the woods, with no neighbor in sight.

Anyway, this "gentleman" retreated, because she would have gutted the man in a heartbeat and she made it clear enough to him on that day.

I posted my property. I fenced it and gated it. I've installed lights and alarms. I went out and purchased firearms for both my wife and myself, registered them, and applied and received conceal and carry permits for the both of us.

Those guns have protected us well over the years, and it would amaze you how may people who either refuse or cannot read a dozen signs telling them that they are trespassing.

I greet at least a dozen cars per year in my driveway with a smile, a polite warning and demand that they turn around and leave the same way they came, along with my pistol in my left hand.

January 23, 2011 at 1:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Indian wrote: "Alprova,you run your mouth and say that you are a N.R.A member,I DO NOT know one member in the N.R.A that voted for Obama or has anything to do with him!You say Obama is in favor of private gun ownership,YOU ARE FULL OF #%*!,Obama is doing all he can to disarm the UNITED STATES!"


I'm sorry Indian, but like everything else you post, you have no clue whatsoever what you are attesting to. You are simply misinformed to an extreme. It is pointless for me to even respond, and a waste of time to do so.

I know many NRA member who voted for President Obama. I know many NRA members who are not on board with every thing they put out in print or online. When it comes to the NRA's position on Obama, they totally lied. There is much proof to that.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html


"I am a recruiter and LIFE MEMBER of the N.R.A and Gun Owners of America.I go to all conventions and meetings all over this country.I know the facts and the FACT is Obama is against guns,ammunition and everything that has to do with a firearm!Every single person Obama has put or tried to put in office is against guns and gun ownership!"


I don't care what you claim to be or what you claim to do. The simple fact is that Obama is not and has never been against private gun ownership and you are now perpetuating a pack of lies yourself.


"I know you believe in the liar (Obama) and that you voted for the him.You brag about that all the time.I will say that "if" you are a member of the N.R.A you should be "IMPEACHED" from the organization!"


That's hilarious. What a man you think you are. By all means, impeach me!!


"If I had you card number I would do everything I can to have you removed from enrollment.The N.R.A does not need people like you in the organization."


You Sir do not have even half the amount of intelligence needed to be what you claim to be.


"The 2nd Amendment was wrote in the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago and it will NEVER be changed by anyone!It is our right and will always be our right to keep and bear arms.Yes,you will get mine when you pry my cold dead fingers from them!That is not a statement,that is a fact!"


Simple proof that you don't comprehend what you read at all. I'm going to leave it right there and let you figure it out all by yourself.


"Our fore-fathers fought and died for our rights and I will do the same.Right NOW,our troops are giving their lives for our rights,freedom and country!It is a SLAP in the faces of our troops and citizens for Obama to do the things he is doing and has done against our country!!!"


Oh brother....you're hopelessly as pathetic as it ever gets.

Please go out a buy a brain.

January 23, 2011 at 1:38 p.m.
Reardon said...

Al -- you're scaring me -- you're starting to sound like a Teabagger, living in the woods, with No Trespassing Signs, doting guns around the place.

"...my pistol in my left hand."

Ahh -- confirming what I should've known -- you're a LEFTIST!!! ;-)

January 23, 2011 at 2:06 p.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "Ahh -- confirming what I should've known -- you're a LEFTIST!!! ;-)"


I'm a lefty for sure. At one time you could have cut off my right arm and I wouldn't have noticed it.

Can't quite say that anymore though. I've trained myself to do some things right-handed.

January 23, 2011 at 2:11 p.m.
canarysong said...

Perhaps trburrows thinly-veiled racial slur should be left there for all to see. That and his "why don't you roll over and die" comment show his true character (or lack thereof) in all its ugliness.

I'm going to go close my eyes and dream of a world where nucanuck's "lonely voice against guns" is not so lonely. Please don't wake me.

January 23, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

"I went out and purchased firearms for both my wife and myself, registered them, and applied and received conceal and carry permits for the both of us."

I'm not arguing with you here, just curious.

Who did you "register" your firearms with?

What state are you in that issued a "conceal and carry" permit?

Neither TN, GA, or the Feds require the "registration" of anything other than NFA weapons(Short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, full auto rifles, etc.).

Neither TN or GA require those with firearms carry permits to "conceal" the weapon.(I think it's a good idea to do so anyway, from a tactical perspective)

Interestingly enough, GA does not even require a carry permit to keep a firearm in your automobile so long as it is in plain view. (You do need a permit to keep it in the console or the glove compartment)


I find it terribly interesting that one of the most consistent voices against 2nd Amendment rights posting on this page is the same person who, in other threads, whole-heartedly supports the systematic murder of individuals for "population control" purposes.

Folks like him are the reason folks like me will never give up our firearms.

Notice who is aligned with the ideals of freedom, liberty, and individual self determination and who is aligned with the ideals of authoritarian oppression and state sponsored mass-murder?

Let's all keep it in mind that more folks were murdered in the past century by their own governments than all the deaths in all the wars in the last five hundred years.

Those governments were under the command of folks who cared not a whit for individual rights, freedom, or our "quaint" ideal of liberty.

January 23, 2011 at 2:53 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

So, according to the Second Amendment, I could get me some EMPs. Maybe if I win the lottery I could buy me an F-22...nobody else seems to want them. And to think...I don't even own a gun.

Clay, good point that you brought up with this one. Where DOES it end?

January 23, 2011 at 3:42 p.m.
hambone said...

The guy on the other side of the fence has a shocked look on his face.

Worried about his property value I bet!

January 23, 2011 at 3:57 p.m.

Delmar wrote:

“Perhaps, also, someone can explain the fascination with guns to me so that I can better understand why some folks get so excited when the subject of gun reform laws or gun control is mentioned... Seriously, I want to understand.”

Alprova, in your 1:15 post, you are getting at an important distinction that so far doesn’t seem to have been clearly addressed: That the character of the person owning or wielding the gun should be the focus of discussion for the causes of and solutions to gun violence. Thank you.

Part of it is a subtle reason that requires us to consider the two hundred years between now and America’s founding: the radical individualism of the 20th century. It has contributed to our being cut adrift from traditional family and community ties. The partial recovery of those ties was cited as a reason for the decline in local juvenile crime. It is personally (but not necessarily financially) expensive. It requires personal and societal sacrifices. It’s also less potentially threatening than guns, gun control, regulation, or the free market. (So everyone’s happy?) We’re a long way off, but keep hope alive. (ACT on it.)

One more thing. Some of the arguments on both sides seem to confuse instrumentality with causality, as well as confusing primary with secondary causation. Perpetrators of gun violence are almost always greedy, desensitized, self-absorbed, and careless individuals. Guns do not kill people any more than scissors killed the babies in Philadelphia. Those who ran the abortion clinic there are extreme examples of the way all of us are affected by the cheapening of human life and the disrespect for its sanctity (or its value, if you prefer).

It is our calloused attitude toward the well-being of others when they interfere with our own demand to live with complete autonomy. It’s what unites many gun nuts, pro-choice advocates, and those who prefer urban sprawl.

Once again, it is confusing individuality or independence (perfectly good values in many contexts) with absolute autonomy, self-assertion, and self-defense in isolation. It is a going back to the wild west, which is part of what MADE this country, I guess, but I’m not sure it needs to be permanent.

We are what’s wrong with the world.

January 23, 2011 at 4:01 p.m.

For someone who put it a lot better than I did, I recommend:

The Masterless: Self and Society in Modern America by local author Wilfred M. McClay.

January 23, 2011 at 4:16 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Al,

A couple of years back I would have agreed with you about outlaws and guns,but now I have seen and lived in a city where outlaws DON'T have guns and neither does anyone else. Violent crime rarely happens and when it does,a knife is usually the weapon of choice. Several days ago an angry disgruntled man attacked a policeman with a knife. The injury was not severe and the man will serve some time. Had he had access to a gun,the story would likely have been far worse.

There is a better way than a gun culture,I am living it now. My neighbors are no different here than they were in Chattanooga,except they don't want and won't tolerate guns.

In the US,should gun violence become commonplace in better neighborhoods,should the fear factor begin to dominate daily life,the debate may begin in earnest about the merits of gun ownership and the attendant violence.

Until that day,dare to dream.

January 23, 2011 at 4:20 p.m.
bret said...

alprova, I'm probably getting my stats from the same place you are (FBI, GBI). You admit that crime is low in Kennesaw because of the demographics, Kennesaw being a largely upscale community.

It's just math. If you have a population of 1000 people and there is one crime then the crime rate is 0.001. If your population grows to 100,000 and you have 10 crimes, your total number of crimes has increased but your crime RATE has now dropped substantially.

So while the population in Kennesaw increased the crime rate dropped, even though there were more crimes committed, as you would expect with a much larger population.

It's been awhile since I have looked up the actual numbers for Kennesaw, but if you do you will confirm what I am saying. As for the property crimes dropping after the ordinance, I seem to recall it went from something like 3 to 1 the next year (or some minuscule number like that) before rising to what it is now which is larger than what it was back in the 80's when the ordinance was passed.

The point is that the gun ordinance had zero affect on the crime rate in Kennesaw. The perceived drop was due to population statistics.

January 23, 2011 at 4:24 p.m.
nucanuck said...

SCOTTYM,

No where in my post on another thread did I whole heartedly endorse the systematic murder of individuals for the purposes of population control. Neither did I half heartedly endorse such measures. I mentioned abortion,sterilization,and euthanasia as uncomfortable topics with no attached opinion.

For you to knowingly and maliciously mangle the truth makes you a bold faced LIAR with an agenda.

In this case,I am not name calling...simply pointing out a fact.

January 23, 2011 at 4:46 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"If that is true,what might be the best way to cull the herd and/or prevent the herd from growing larger? All of the possibilities are controversial and/or offensive to most of society and yet this is a discussion that needs to be pursued,and rather quickly"

What are you advocating then, exactly?

Trying to back your way out of a morally repugnant position by claiming "non-opinionated observer" status doesn't cut it.

You brought these things up and you advocated that they need to be discussed.

Why would we need to discuss them if they are, for reasons of individual human value, absolutely off the table(which is my position)?

Call me names all you like, I don't care, but it seems I've hit a nerve.

The currently running thread we are discussing isn't the only time you've exposed your misanthropic viewpoint, and this isn't the only time you've acted like a child when I called you on it.

And yes, I have an agenda.

It is to expose Statism as the sick, anti-human, anti-freedom ideology that it is, and you've got it bad.

I'm just pointing out real facts.

January 23, 2011 at 5:29 p.m.
jimbob said...

hambone, It's like this if you want some! come get some!

January 23, 2011 at 5:56 p.m.
jimbob said...

It seems like francis forgot to take his meds. today.

January 23, 2011 at 5:58 p.m.
nucanuck said...

SCOTTYM,

I whole heartedly endorsed nothing and you know it. You in turn accused me of endorsing murder. That,Sir,is not hitting a nerve,that is a bold hideous lie intentionally laid out by you.

Hold on to your narrow world views as tight as you like,but spare me the BIG LIE as part your attack methods.

If you have something to say about sustainable world population,let's hear your thoughts. If you think I'm a statist,whatever that is,tell us why...don't just hurl an epithet.

I did not call you an empty name.I called you a liar (it was to blatant to be a prevarication) for a specific malicious lie. I did not say it to demean,only to point out your transgression.

You can be bigger than that,I hope you will be.

January 23, 2011 at 7 p.m.
rustyhoundog said...

Actually, the founders did NOT consider muskets as personal weapons. Personal weapons in those times were knives and swords, which arms were outlawed throughout Europe at the time of our revolution.

Muskets and shot guns were for filling the pot or waging war. Knives and swords were the main weapons of individual self defense; no need to consider how to reload a single shot sword or knife.

January 23, 2011 at 7:02 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

nn,

I'll ask again.

What are you advocating then, exactly?

You are the one who believes the Ehrlichian idea that the world population is unsustainable and that "something" needs to be done to fix this "problem".(Despite the fact that none of the predictions of your type have ever come about, not once.)

You want us to have a "conversation" about murdering the excess individuals(call it euthanasia, or abortion, or whatever you'd like, murder is what it is).

You can act butthurt, and proclaim that you aren't advocating these things, but the fact is that you are.

I'll say this again, too.

Folks like you are the reason that folks like me will NEVER give up our firearms.

"You can be bigger than that,I hope you will be."

Too bad, as I just do not care what you, or any of your Statist buddies and useful idiot comrades think about me.

January 23, 2011 at 8 p.m.
rolando said...

Amen to that, SCOTTYM.

January 23, 2011 at 8:04 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

rustyhoundog | On: January 23, 2011 at 7:02 p.m.

So much ignorance.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson

Granted, this is only one of the FFs, but he was by no means a minority voice.

January 23, 2011 at 8:13 p.m.
nucanuck said...

SCOTTYM,

I advocated nothing. Pointing out an imbalance between population and rates of resource consumption and that it would take five earths for all seven billion of us to live the way we live should be a subject of awareness and debate.

The debate should be conservation of resourses in order that all the earths population can live above the poverty level. Failing that,how does the earth deal with too few resourses for too many people. The choices aren't pretty.

Mentioning euthanasia,abortion,and sterilization is not advocacy,but it does help focus the mind on the potential difficulty over-population could bring.

If you don't like my views,fine,but you have no right to intentionally mis-state and fabricate what another has actually said. That was the big lie you spoke.

Your passion often clouds your thinking,you often belittle those whose opinions you find wanting,but lying to make a point is a new low.

January 23, 2011 at 9:40 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty inquired: "Al,

"I went out and purchased firearms for both my wife and myself, registered them, and applied and received conceal and carry permits for the both of us."

I'm not arguing with you here, just curious.

Who did you "register" your firearms with?"


The State of Minnesota. We have a second home there. I did use the incorrect terminology. There is a "record of sale" for my firearms in that state.


"What state are you in that issued a "conceal and carry" permit?"


I was in Minnesota at the time of purchase.


"Interestingly enough, GA does not even require a carry permit to keep a firearm in your automobile so long as it is in plain view. (You do need a permit to keep it in the console or the glove compartment)"


Which Sheriff Steve Wilson was kind enough to supply me several years ago.

January 23, 2011 at 10:02 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

Fair enough.

--

Small town sheriffs are generally amicable to law abiding folks having firearms.

They know that it is impossible to protect all of their constituents.

January 23, 2011 at 10:32 p.m.
jimbob said...

Number 1 firearm sailsman of the year, Obama

January 24, 2011 at 6:30 a.m.
rolando said...

Indeed, jimbob. Sales of handguns, ammo, reloading supplies went through the roof and are still up there. We have at least one homegrown [US] industry that is booming...thanks to Maobama. Owning pre-2008 stock in S&W, et al was a sure-fire [so to speak] investment.

January 24, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

I didn't see this anywhere in this thread, but maybe I overlooked it. It seems some of you may not be remembering another valid reason for us to have weapons available; both the Japanese and Russian governments have gone on record in the past century stating they wouldn't invade the United States due to how heavily armed we are. And don't forget we also dropped the bomb on Japan during that same war in which they made said statement because they were actively arming their citizenry in response to our being ahead of them on that front. That's something to think about with the ever growing hostility in today's world.

As the oil begins to noticably deminish over the next couple of decades (assuming the wells aren't replenishing themselves as some have been known to do), we will most likely go to war with someone specifically because of oil. The next time it happens it won't be shrouded in mystery as W. intended. We will declare that "we want it" and will invade to get it. Perhaps us having our firearms might prolong the day we see troops occupying our land.

January 24, 2011 at 8:49 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

I with you on this one Clay ... but only this one

January 24, 2011 at 10:15 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Rolando pointed out that, "Sales of handguns, ammo, reloading supplies went through the roof and are still up there. We have at least one homegrown [US] industry that is booming...thanks to Maobama. Owning pre-2008 stock in S&W, et al was a sure-fire [so to speak] investment."

More proof, as if more proof were needed, that the NRA is all about gun sales. Even though there is no indication at all that Obama wants your guns, as several earlier posts pointed out, you guys have been scared into thinking he does.

That's either great marketing or brain washing. Maybe, by definition, it's both.

January 24, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.
jimbob said...

blackwater48, The NRA is all about gun sales. Not true. The NRA doesn't sell guns. They offer a lot of classes in the gun saftey and handling of firearms. They do in depth studies on different types of firearms and wich might be the best choice for what a person might need.

January 24, 2011 at 12:32 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Blackwater48 - WHAT ARE YOU DOING!!!

Don't spill the beans. My shares in Smith&Wesson (SWHC) and Ruger (RGR) have constantly increased for the last two years. I want the gun nuts to buy, buy, buy. GPS ain't cheap.

January 24, 2011 at 1:04 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

ITGuy said: "Those who believe that the average citizen should have access to the same weapons that the military has, are delusional."

I very much agree with your thoughts on this issue, ITguy. It's clear the second amendment was established to allow the colonies to have militias. It was not established to assure that its citizens could purchase any and all sorts of weapons for their collections.

In the recent Arizona tragedy, an individual using a high capacity weapon shot 24 people. Common sense and common concern should tell each of us that our society has nothing to lose and everything to gain by banning these kinds of high capacity weapons.

January 24, 2011 at 1:24 p.m.
pmcauley said...

"acern igger"

no one is attacking, if you have a view point that is different then it should be defended. alprova is full of it and it shows." Username: trburrows | On: January 23, 2011 at 2:03 a.m.

Perhaps it's a typo and he didn't notice. I'm one of those 1/2 full cup people...

PM

January 24, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.
pmcauley said...

Hey jimbob: Why do you think Obama is a great guns salesman? pm

January 24, 2011 at 1:56 p.m.
acerigger said...

"Perhaps it's a typo and he didn't notice. I'm one of those 1/2 full cup people...

PM Username: pmcauley | On: January 24, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.

Yes, yes, and bless your heart.(hint, try making that same "typo" on your keyboard, it's quite a stretch.)

January 24, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

– On Sunday, four officers were shot in a Detroit police station by a man who walked in, firing randomly. Lamar Deshea Moore was shot to death by police so his motive may never be known, but local reports say a relative was awaiting sentencing for double murder. Two of the police officers remain hospitalized.

– Two deputies were shot outside a Walmart in Port Orchard, Washington, near Seattle, on Sunday.

– A police officer is in a coma and in critical condition after being shot during a traffic stop early Sunday in Indianapolis.

– In Lincoln City, Oregon, a police officer was shot Sunday night during a traffic stop. The officer is in critical condition.

Although they do not appear to be related, the weekend shootings follow two other violent incidents last week involving police officers, including the Miami killings and a slaying in Lakewood, New Jersey.

“They are shooting at people they know have guns,” ... “I don’t know what’s going on out there, but I’ve never seen it like this. I do see the developing of a callousness. It’s almost as if shooting a police officer has lost its shock effect.” - Hal Johnson, Florida Police Benevolent Association

Stay safe.

January 24, 2011 at 3:34 p.m.
alprova said...

pmcauley wrote: "Perhaps it's a typo and he didn't notice. I'm one of those 1/2 full cup people..."


If that had been the case, he's had more than enough time to apologize for it. Adding a word AND adding a space? I don't think it was a typo.

January 24, 2011 at 4:24 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

This cartoon has me wondering if blackwater is really clay bennett. BW seemed to think it was incredibly important to define the debate over missiles and nuclear weapons as relevant to the second amendment when bw was posting on the stupid cartoon featuring Palin’s book cover plastered with discounted pricing. Now clay comes up with this incredibly stupid cartoon? Is it possible that there are two people so incredibly like-minded in the area surrounding Chattanooga?

That certainly would explain why bw comes running to clay’s defense all frothing at the mouth and everything whenever I or others point out how lame clay’s work is.

Bw can at least take credit for giving clay the idea. Bw, did you get the royalties as clay for the cartoon or did you get a commission from clay for the idea?

January 24, 2011 at 5:24 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: mountainlaurel | On: January 24, 2011 at 1:24 p.m. "Common sense and common concern should tell each of us that our society has nothing to lose and everything to gain by banning these kinds of high capacity weapons."

I’d have to disagree with you on that mountainlaurel. The specific weapon that you are referring to is used every day by citizens to protect themselves. I for one see value in that. The weapons that you would apparently limit ownership to would always leave a single victim at a big disadvantage against multiple assailants. Your opinion is far from universal and is not common sense.

January 24, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: "The specific weapon that you are referring to is used every day by citizens to protect themselves."

Can't say I've ever read or heard about any kind of scenario where U.S. citizens needed a 30-round handgun to protect themselves or their family, BigRidgePatriot. Can you provide me with an actual situation where a 30-round handgun was needed by a citizen?

January 24, 2011 at 6:04 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: alprova | On: January 23, 2011 at 1:04 a.m. “President Obama has gone on record many times over the past four years, in favor of private gun ownership. As to why some people seem to have an alternative perception of the man and his attitude on the issue, the words "completely paranoid at all times" come to mind.”

Alprova, come on. You are too smart to believe that! President Obama is a clever politician but he is no supporter of gun rights. He knows how incredibly powerful the gun lobby is and how much efforts to erode gun rights have cost Democrats in the past. He will do whatever he can to erode at the margins of gun rights without hurting himself too much politically. Gun rights are not as important to him as his socialist agenda.

He has come out against concealed carry, in support of a permanent assault weapon ban (a misuse of words to justify banning mostly “ugly looking” semi-automatic rifles), supports hand-gun registration and licensing, voted to ban most military surplus ammo (us gun nuts like to use this stuff because it is CHEAP), opposed protecting firearm manufacturers from being held responsible for the actions of criminals, and opposed the nomination of Roberts and Alito who are both known 2nd Amendment supporters.

That is about as extreme against guns as any politician could ever openly be and still hope to be elected. I guess you can say that Obama has gone on the record in favor is accurate, but for you to represent him as actually supporting private gun ownership is disingenuous. Again, you are too smart to fall for that.

January 24, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

To pick up on what SeaSmokie59er wrote at 3:34: Two more Police Officers were killed in St. Petersburg, Florida this morning. A U.S. Marshall was shot twice but is expected to survive.

Ironically, the two Miami officers who were gunned down last week were laid to rest today.

So far 12 Police Officers have been gunned down nationwide and we're still in January. I had an errand to run this afternoon and turned on talk radio. Of course the first caller I heard is a proud NRA member who, while sad, was warning against President Obama "taking away our guns."

I wanted to pull off the road and puke.

God Bless the USA.

January 24, 2011 at 6:29 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The weapon was a Glock 19. Those would typically have a 15 round magazine. Many people use this gun for self-defense. It may be possible to get larger mags (I have heard reports that the police said he had 30 rnd magazines, as you say) but it is not really that relevant.

He could just as easily carried two with 15 round magazines or just changed magazines. I understand that the Fort Hood shooter made multiple magazine changes.

As for your question, when you end up in a gun fight with a criminal, especially multiple assailants, you can never have too much ammunition. Let me put it this way. Why don’t police use six shooters? Oh yeah, because the criminals may have 100 round drum clips. Would you put whatever limit you would impose on me on the police as well?

January 24, 2011 at 6:33 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Somebody who should have listened to the President:

A former boyfriend who kicked in the front door of a Cordova woman’s house on Sunday night, assaulted her and threatened to kill her with a knife was shot and killed by her current boyfriend

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jan/24/crime-report-millington-police-make-two-drug-arres/

January 24, 2011 at 6:39 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

For discussion purposes:

Where do we draw the line? 15, 20, 100 round mags. .50 cal, 20mm, 577? SAW's, miniguns?

What is too much?

January 24, 2011 at 6:53 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: SeaSmokie59er | On: January 24, 2011 at 3:34 p.m. “On Sunday, four officers were …Two deputies were shot outside a … A police officer is in a coma and in critical condition after being … a police officer was shot …”

Sounds like a strong argument for anyone who does not already own a weapon for self-defense to go out and get one. The wonderful world that is free of violent criminals that nucanuck fantasizes about is nowhere on the horizon.

January 24, 2011 at 7:06 p.m.
Sailorman said...

SeaSmokie

I understand your point but it's a specious argument. That stuff is already available to those who have the desire and the money. You can even buy a Mig. You won't find them at your local Army surplus or Sportsman's Warehouse. Legal or illegal they can be had. Of all people, you ought to be familiar with the cartels. Eventually some nutbags are going to come up with a nuke. Remember Adnan Kashoggi? Or the movie Lord of War? It's wishful thinking to believe guns could ever be eliminated.

I'd like to know something about the scum that shot the officers. I'll go out on a limb and bet the weapons weren't legal and the culprits were not unknown to law enforcement.

You want to eliminate gun crime? Any time a crime, of any sort, is committed with a firearm, immediately execute the perpetrator with said firearm. Sounds drastic eh? Once that news gets out it would no doubt solve the problem in short order.

So where should the line be drawn? Our revolving door legal system isn't getting it done. Neither will fanciful political machinations like the Assault Weapon ban.

January 24, 2011 at 7:32 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"What is too much?"

Much like money, and good looks, one can never have too much firepower.

I could definitely use more of all three. :(


I'm not sure what you think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means, but it seems pretty clear to me.

If it's a firearm, we can have it. Period.


Let's try a few others...

How many words are too much when engaging in Constitutionally protected speech?

10? 100? 10,000? 100,000?

How often should one be allowed to go to church?

Once a week? Twice a week? Five times a week?

How many soldiers are allowed to be billeted at your house, against your will, before it is too much?

1? 4? 12?

How big can your house be before the Police are allowed to search it any time they want?

100 SqFt? 1000 SqFt? 10,000 SqFt?

How tall can you be and still claim 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

5'4"? 5'11"? 6'5"?

--

So long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, one can never have "too much" freedom.

The inventory of my gun safe has zero effect upon the rights of anyone else.

January 24, 2011 at 7:38 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Sailorman wrote,

"You want to eliminate gun crime? Any time a crime, of any sort, is committed with a firearm, immediately execute the perpetrator with said firearm."

Now there is a real solution.

Too bad the left will never go for it as it wouldn't be fair to the criminal.

"Our unfair society made him do it. We need to let him go and get rid of those evil guns that the NRA forced upon him."

January 24, 2011 at 7:43 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: SCOTTYM | On: January 24, 2011 at 7:38 p.m.

Bravo!

January 24, 2011 at 7:44 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Alprova, come on. You are too smart to believe that! President Obama is a clever politician but he is no supporter of gun rights."


Okay then, he's been in office for two full years. Name so much as one effort on his part to erode gun rights in this nation in those two years.

I don't think the man has offered one word on the subject.


He has come out against concealed carry..."


He orally opined more than two years ago that he does not care for conceal/carry, but has taken no action to eradicate it. He is entitled to his opinion, is he not? That does not make him a radical anti-gun nitwit.

"...[he is] in support of a permanent assault weapon ban (a misuse of words to justify banning mostly “ugly looking” semi-automatic rifles)..."


Many people in this nation do not want semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public-at-large. I'm one of them. Sorry. There is no justification for anyone needing such a weapon. Sorry again.


"[He]supports hand-gun registration and licensing"


So do I. So should you, unless you have some really good reason for not wanting your firearms to be able to be traced back to you.


[He]voted to ban most military surplus ammo (us gun nuts like to use this stuff because it is CHEAP), opposed protecting firearm manufacturers from being held responsible for the actions of criminals"


None of the above are indications that he is against private gun ownership for hunting or for protection.

You may not agree with it, but let's face it -- If the first gun had never been made, no one would have ever needed another one. They are manufactured for one purpose. They are intended to cause nothing but death to anyone targeted. They have killed many people over the eons.

I don't hear anyone calling for any protection of any other manufacturers if their product kills someone.


"...and opposed the nomination of Roberts and Alito who are both known 2nd Amendment supporters."


It would be a stretch to assume that the only opposition to either of those men was strictly due to their 2nd Amendment views. There are several reasons that I don't care for either of them.


"...but for you to represent him as actually supporting private gun ownership is disingenuous. Again, you are too smart to fall for that."


He's not an NRA member and he probably does not own a gun, and he, like myself, see no sense whatsoever in people having possession of guns capable of massive destruction, but that in no manner suggests that he would take away your or my right to have a gun in our home or on our person, as the need may arise, for self-protection of our person and property.

He has a lot more on his plate at the moment.

January 24, 2011 at 8:33 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "As for your question, when you end up in a gun fight with a criminal, especially multiple assailants, you can never have too much ammunition."


And how many average citizens in this nation find themselves in gun fights with "multiple assailants" on an average day?


"Let me put it this way. Why don’t police use six shooters? Oh yeah, because the criminals may have 100 round drum clips. Would you put whatever limit you would impose on me on the police as well?"


Not me. I want our police armed to the teeth.

That does not mean that I want Joe Blow armed in the same manner. A handgun for self-protection? Fine. A shotgun or a rifle to shoot wild animals or trespassers who refuse to leave one's property? Fine again.

But no one needs a military grade weapon for protection.

I've always heard that men who get a thrill from firing assault rifles, are traditionally under-endowed in the manhood department.

Anyone want to confirm that?

January 24, 2011 at 8:53 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Many people in this nation do not want semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public-at-large. I'm one of them."

Really?

What type of pistol are you running, a revolver or a single shot?

Again, not arguing, just curious.

I don't really understand why one would not want to take advantage of the technological improvements since the late 1800s.

January 24, 2011 at 8:58 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

I think the ace------ was not a typo either. Alpo is correct in my streched truth opinion. I am also a glass half full person. I only believe it is half full when I'm pouring and it is half empty when I'm drinking. I am at that confusing point in life between never drinking again and noon!! Get ready. Tomorrow is coming, like it or not!! Lets see if we get a "I have a dream speech." or maybe something about being your brothers keeper. You can count on one thing. There will be finger pointing and a pompous attitude. Some people think this is a sign of intelligence??

January 24, 2011 at 9:09 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty, right now I own Glock 21's (13 round). I also have a couple of cheap shotguns that I keep loaded by the front door of my home.

My brain is not working very well the last few weeks as I am recovering from a very bad case of pneumonia. The use of the word "semi-automatic" was a complete brain burp.

My position is very simple. Anything above 15 rounds is too much, unless it is a BB gun. If you can't hit what you are aiming at with that many rounds or less than that many rounds, you have no business shooting the gun.

I object to private ownership of military grade weapons, unless perhaps you were in the military or are/were in law enforcement. Even then, a military grade weapon should not be in any state where it could be fired.

I know that my opinion is unpopular with those who feel they should be able to own practically any weapon at all, but that is simply the way that I feel.

I know that I am not alone in that opinion.

January 24, 2011 at 9:20 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Al

"If you can't hit what you are aiming at with that many rounds or less than that many rounds, you have no business shooting the gun."

We can agree on that.

What do you consider a "military grade" weapon?

January 24, 2011 at 9:29 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Al, You are not alone. These guns seem like good things to have until you're on the wrong end of one. Let's keep families of the 17 officers that have died this month in our thoughts.

Note: We still have seven more days left in January.

January 24, 2011 at 9:46 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePartriot said: “The weapon was a Glock 19. . . I have heard reports that the police said he had 30 rnd magazines. . . but it is not really that relevant."

Actually, it is revevant, BigRidgePatriot. The killer in Arizona was tackled when he stopped to reload his weapon. And if he had been using the six-shooter you mentioned in your post, there would have been 6 victims instead of 24 victims - four times as many victims.

January 24, 2011 at 10:04 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "What do you consider a "military grade" weapon?"


Most magazine-fed assault rifles, machine guns, Uzi's, AK-47's, battle rifles, sniper rifles, and just about anything on the following list;

And of course, anything that has to be launched, other than that which is classified as fireworks.

Need I mention anything that which is classified as being nuclear in nature?

January 24, 2011 at 10:06 p.m.
alprova said...

Seasmokie59er wrote: "Let's keep families of the 17 officers that have died this month in our thoughts."


I do that just about every day. I have several extended family members who are LEO's. I was once one myself many years ago for three years. Wasn't my thing.

I don't know which is worse at the moment -- Officers being violent with the public, or the public being violent with the officers.

I'm very afraid that this recent spate of violence against officers is going to make officers very offensive towards the public.

It's not so bad down here, as far as I know, but in some places there have been officers literally throwing people around, tasering them, cuffing them, carrying them to the hospital, and THEN asking them questions. And the age of the suspect is not taken into consideration at all.

January 24, 2011 at 10:17 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Al

I'll assume you mean the full auto versions. Sniper rifles? That's as much or more a function of the individual than the weapon of choice. My Rem 700 is every bit the equal of the M24 - except I can't afford the whizbang optics the military uses - unfortunately.

At any rate, they're illegal already without various rather expensive taxes and tons of paperwork. None of which the problem individuals bother with.

Go back and read my earlier post. I'd still like to know how you think another law, or even an outright ban, would stop the use of any of those you list by the criminals who use them now.

January 24, 2011 at 10:23 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: alprova | On: January 24, 2011 at 8:33 p.m. alproval said, “Okay then, he's been in office for two full years. Name so much as one effort on his part to erode gun rights in this nation in those two years. I don't think the man has offered one word on the subject.”

I can only repeat, “He knows how incredibly powerful the gun lobby is and how much efforts to erode gun rights have cost Democrats in the past.” and “Gun rights are not as important to him as his socialist agenda”.


Alproval said, “He orally opined more than two years ago that he does not care for conceal/carry, but has taken no action to eradicate it. He is entitled to his opinion, is he not? That does not make him a radical anti-gun nitwit.”

I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. --- Mendell, David, "From Promise to Power" (2007), p. 251. I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations. --- Pittsburg Tribune-Review (April 2, 2008). [Obama] backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions. "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said. --- http://www.icadp.org/page236.html (Citing David Mendel, Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004) He opined and believes that we should not have the right to concealed carry firearms and the resulting protection that they afford. If he has taken no action on his belief it is only because he has bigger fish to fry, the socialization of America, and does not want to expend his political capital by giving fodder to the gun rights advocates.


alprova said, “Many people in this nation do not want semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public-at-large. I'm one of them. Sorry. There is no justification for anyone needing such a weapon. Sorry again.”

Alprova, you claim to appreciate the value of gun ownership and would not allow a citizen to own a semi-automatic firearm???? Most of my guns are semi-automatic. What do you own, single shots and six shooters?

January 24, 2011 at 10:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said, "[He]supports hand-gun registration and licensing" So do I. So should you, unless you have some really good reason for not wanting your firearms to be able to be traced back to you.

NO, I DO NOT. It takes over a hundred dollars and 3 months just to acquire a suppressor in this country these days. It is easier to suppress a weapon in Germany than it is in the US. In Europe, suppressors are considered to be “polite shooting”. Over here, the gun control lobby has managed to redefine a tool that makes a weapon quiet enough to not harm your ears while firing without personal hearing protection some kind of “hazard to society”. The gun control lobby is irrational and not to be given an inch!

As far as tracing goes… I do not have to register a car that I do not take on public roads, why should I have to register a firearm that I keep on my property? I do not have to have a license to operate a car that I keep on my property, why should I have to have a license to operate a gun in my own home? I have ALREADY submitted to a background check to get my concealed carry permit. Why should the government be interested in knowing exactly how many firearms I own and of what type unless they might be interested in confiscating them?

As a CHL License Holder, I, Have NO felony convictions – LIFETIME. Have No Class A or B misdemeanors in the last 5 years Have passed both State and Federal fingerprint and background checks Am not delinquent in Child Support, Student Loans, State/Local taxes. What the hell does the government need to know about me beyond that?

January 24, 2011 at 10:33 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

[He]voted to ban most military surplus ammo (us gun nuts like to use this stuff because it is CHEAP), opposed protecting firearm manufacturers from being held responsible for the actions of criminals"


Alprova said”,”None of the above are indications that he is against private gun ownership for hunting or for protection.”

No, Just more evidence that he wants to drive up the cost of gun ownership and the joy of shooting a firearm. Kind of like his plan to get us off coal by driving the costs through the ceiling. Military surplus ammo has been a staple of people who go to the range and practice with great regularity for many, many years. Criminals will not be deterred by such a ban. Only the guy that likes to go to the range every other weekend and sharpen his craft with another couple of hundred rounds sent down range.


Alprova wrote, ““You may not agree with it, but let's face it -- If the first gun had never been made, no one would have ever needed another one. They are manufactured for one purpose. They are intended to cause nothing but death to anyone targeted. They have killed many people over the eons.” By that logic, if a gun never existed, I would have never needed to own one. OK, they were invented and they do exist.
Again, alprova, you are too smart to believe this. I own no less than 2 dozen guns. None of them have ever been fired upon a human. Only three of them have ever been used to hunt. I probably shoot a thousand rounds at the range in pure enjoyment of the sport of marksmanship for every round shot hunting. I have never shot a round in self-defense, although I have disarmed a couple of situations because I had a firearm handy. In both situations, they were very scary looking, awe inspiring firearms. There was NO DOUBT that it would be in the intruder’s best interest to pack up and leave. I said, and think it is worth repeating,"...but for you to represent him as actually supporting private gun ownership is disingenuous. Again, you are too smart to fall for that."

January 24, 2011 at 10:35 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: mountainlaurel | On: January 24, 2011 at 10:04 p.m. “Actually, it is revevant, BigRidgePatriot. The killer in Arizona was tackled when he stopped to reload his weapon. And if he had been using the six-shooter you mentioned in your post, there would have been 6 victims instead of 24 victims - four times as many victims.”

I am sure you would like to think it so. I saw interviews of the two that subdued the assailant. It seems that they were in the right place at the right time and just… reacted. It would be silly to assume that they would not have reacted if the situation was MORE serious, if the soon to be dead victims perceived that the assailant’s weapon was full and if they just sat down he would go away. It would also be silly to assume that the concealed carry permit holder on the scene would have held his weapon if he perceived the perp to still be a threat. Us concealed permit holders are taught to seriously consider the situation before we draw our weapon. If the perp had still been a threat instead of being rolled by unarmed citizens close by, we might well be rid of him already.

January 24, 2011 at 10:49 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

alprova | On: January 24, 2011 at 9:20 p.m.

"Anything above 15 rounds is too much, unless it is a BB gun. If you can't hit what you are aiming at with that many rounds or less than that many rounds, you have no business shooting the gun."

So in a multiple bad-guy situation what? SOL?

I want every advantage I can lay my hands on as the only reason I'll ever use my firearms is in defense and I will therefore be behind the eight-ball already.

30 round pistol magazines aren't exactly my idea of "discrete" carry, but one can practice the reload drill enough to make it a moot point anyway. I run a G22 w/ 15 rounders. I can run 46 rounds through the thing fast enough to make my wallet catch on fire.

Of course, even if manufacturing and sales of those 15+ round magazines was once again banned, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them out in the wild already.

Very few would be turned in, and it would be a bloodbath if the ATF attempted to round them all up.


Not me, but

"Need I mention anything that which is classified as being nuclear in nature?"

Hey if we're going hyperbolic... My carry rig has nuclear powered sights. The radioactive, gaseous power source was produced in a nuclear reactor and could also be used to boost the output of a thermonuclear warhead.

Do I need a waiver?

January 24, 2011 at 11:10 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “I saw interviews of the two that subdued the assailant. It seems that they were in the right place at the right time and just… reacted.

And the right time was when the killer stopped to reload his weapon. . . Wasn’t it? . . . Nobody tried to tackle the guy while he was firing his handgun. . . Did they, BigRidgePatriot?

January 24, 2011 at 11:35 p.m.
alprova said...

Paranoia rules the day for a few people, no doubt.

I'd be questioning myself as to what needs to be changed in my life if I felt that I needed all those firearms and ammunition ready to shoot at a moment's notice.

Blaming the President, who in two years has not even spoke one word about the issue of private gun ownership in America, is about as laughable as it gets. Over the past couple of weeks, he had plenty of opportunity to speak about the issue, as it was ripe for discussion, and yet, the man said not a word.

To suggest that the pro-gun lobby or owners in this nation intimidate the man is rather silly. Roughly one in seven people own guns in the United States, which is hardly a majority of people.

I would bet that the majority of gun owners in this nation did not vote for the man two years ago. As he once pointed out in a speech, there seems to be an amazing amount of people who tote both guns and Bibles and who support the Republican Party.

Ticking off a clear minority of people who already do not support him, wouldn't really present a problem, when you get right down to it. So if he were truly wanting to go for the guns in this country, he could have done it very easily. Everything cited goes back to a time before he was President. He didn't lie to a soul, but the NRA lied to everyone, and still continues to do so.

That is not to say that there are people who are religious and who support the Democrats, but I'll bet if there were a count performed, gun toters would be overwhelmingly Republican.

This leads me to question if Republicans, by nature, are paranoid and feel the need for a stash of firearms and an inordinate amount of ammunition for their personal protection 24/7/365.

What are they really afraid of? Their own shadow?

If they were to see the President walking down the street, would they rush to lock their doors and roll up their windows?

January 24, 2011 at 11:56 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "I run a G22 w/ 15 rounders. I can run 46 rounds through the thing fast enough to make my wallet catch on fire."


I really hate to say this, but I read the above and wonder if you got a woody relating it.


"Of course, even if manufacturing and sales of those 15+ round magazines was once again banned, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them out in the wild already.

Very few would be turned in, and it would be a bloodbath if the ATF attempted to round them all up"


The whole point of this discussion, by many, is to point out that no one but some of the public-at-large is interested at the moment in doing any banning of guns at the moment.

No one who has the power to do so, is even talking about it on any serious level, unless I have missed something.

I have my opinions on the issue, but I can't change a thing.

I don't think anyone with the Govt is interested or has proposed to confiscate multi-round clips, guns, ammunition, nor are there any impending regulations of any kind being proposed, but what do we read in here?

The tone of your responses are a little disturbing. Maybe you ought to read them.

January 25, 2011 at 12:08 a.m.
alprova said...

Sailorman wrote: "I'll assume you mean the full auto versions."


Yes.


"Sniper rifles? That's as much or more a function of the individual than the weapon of choice. My Rem 700 is every bit the equal of the M24 - except I can't afford the whizbang optics the military uses - unfortunately."


I'm conflicted when if comes to certain kind of rifles. I just don't care for those news stories where people were pinned down, while some ex-military rifleman indiscriminately kills a couple of dozen people from afar.


"At any rate, they're illegal already without various rather expensive taxes and tons of paperwork. None of which the problem individuals bother with."


I know but many a house is broken into for those weapons. That's how they makes it to the streets, for the most part. Legal owners become the supplier to the illegal users.


"Go back and read my earlier post. I'd still like to know how you think another law, or even an outright ban, would stop the use of any of those you list by the criminals who use them now."


It wouldn't stop them all. We all know that. But if they weren't in homes to be stolen, or sold at gun shows, which ought to be banned outright, which I know will tick some people off, the source would be at least controlled a bit better.

Gun sales ought to be monitored like Casinos are. I will admit that violations are rarely found as it stands, but I'll bet there are shady characters operating some outlets. The reasons they are not caught are numerous, such as a lack of gun registration in most states. If it's not on the books, whose to say it was ever sold?

I am for strict gun registration. I think the things ought to be titled and tracked like an automobile. At around $20.00 every time a firearm changed hands, it could and would be an excellent source of revenue for all the states.

I'll also bet that most people would be a bit more careful how they stored their firearms if they knew they could be traced back to them in an instant.

January 25, 2011 at 12:40 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

"Disturbing"? Looks like it may be you who is paranoid.

The "tone" of my most recent comments is irreverent humor.

Feel free to roll your eyes if it's a bit dry for your tastes.


BTW, I'm not terribly worried about it myself, but you seem to be having a tough time keeping up with who you are responding to. I've written nothing lately about impending federal firearms legislation other than that if anyone did feel the urge, it would wouldn't fly, so you see, we agree on something.

January 25, 2011 at 1:06 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Scotty, right now I own Glock 21's (13 round). I also have a couple of cheap shotguns that I keep loaded by the front door of my home."

Username: alprova | On: January 24, 2011 at 9:20 p.m.


"I'd be questioning myself as to what needs to be changed in my life if I felt that I needed all those firearms and ammunition ready to shoot at a moment's notice."

Username: alprova | On: January 24, 2011 at 11:56 p.m.


Does it hurt to hold such diametrically opposite ideas in your head at the same time?

January 25, 2011 at 1:49 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Let's recap:

Sailorman: "I'll assume you mean the full auto versions."


Alprova: Yes.

Sailorman: "At any rate, they're illegal already without various rather expensive taxes and tons of paperwork. None of which the problem individuals bother with."


Alprova: I know but many a house is broken into for those weapons. That's how they makes it to the streets, for the most part. Legal owners become the supplier to the illegal users.

Really Al, I think you're a bit confused. Look up National Firearms Act and tell me again how common these things are. No doubt there are others but every stolen automatic weapon I've seen reported came from a police car - but that's another problem.

I'll end my participation in this waste of time discussion with this quote from none other than you, Alprova, in response to nucanuck:

"At one time, I felt the same way you do."

That makes you the poster boy for (to paraphrase) "People of NC's persuasion are just gun owners who haven't been mugged yet"

January 25, 2011 at 7:41 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

All this crowing about how many weapons you each have, the type of weapon you each have, and how many rounds of ammunition you each have for your weapons is truly disheatenting. One would think the NRA stood for National Roosters Association.

The reality is that it makes no difference how many weapons etc, you have in your gun cabinets and how responsible you may be as individual gun owners, there is a high probability it will not protect your families from the kind of situation that occurred in Arizona.

And while I understand that determined people might always find a way, it does logically follow that we should make it easier for them to purchase some of these things, especially something like a 30-round ammunition magazine. This is the kind of thing that should be banned.

January 25, 2011 at 9:45 a.m.

We have the right to bear arms and keep dumb ass conservatives like Sarah Palin away from our family.

January 25, 2011 at 5:42 p.m.

mountainlaurel wrote:

"The reality is that it makes no difference how many weapons etc, you have in your gun cabinets and how responsible you may be as individual gun owners, there is a high probability it will not protect your families from the kind of situation that occurred in Arizona."

The kind of situation that occurred in Arizona is somewhat unique. Avoiding attempted political assassinations is not what motivates anyone to arm themselves for self-defense. It has more to do with the multitude of more probable threats. Also, no one is under the allusion that guns provide airtight, absolute freedom from ever being threatened or assaulted. They simply add a layer of protection from real threats of real violence in a world such as ours.

Using your logic, it seems that you are under the illusion that more gun regulations are likely to prevent tragedies like the one in Arizona. Once again, you are confusing the instrument (or means) for the cause. You simply can't regulate your way into eliminating the causes of the horrible incident.

I actually support banning assault weapons for personal use, but I'm under no illusion that such a ban will prevent or lessen the threat of harm to the average citizen. Your specious, straw-man arguments play a significant role in why the roosters crow as they do.

January 25, 2011 at 8:59 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: “Avoiding attempted political assassinations is not what motivates anyone to arm themselves for self-defense. . .Using your logic, it seems that you are under the illusion that more gun regulations are likely to prevent tragedies like the one in Arizona. . . you are confusing the instrument . . . for the cause. . . Your specious, straw-man arguments play a significant role in why the roosters crow as they do.”

Aren’t you forgetting something important, WWWTW? Twenty-four people were either killed or injured in Arizona, including a nine-year old child. These people were not politicians. The man in Arizona shot them after he had shot the Congresswoman, and after emptying his 30-round handgun, he tried to reload it - presumably, to shoot even more innocent unarmed people.

And, no, I don’t believe I’m confusing “the cause” and “the instrument,” WWWTW. The concern I expressed was specifically related to the 30-round handgun that this man was using. The way I see it is that if there had been fewer bullets in his gun there would have been fewer victims. Weapons with 30 rounds of ammunitions may be useful in circumstances of war and law enforcement, but I just don’t think they have a place in our daily lives and peaceful communities.

I very much agree we need to work toward eliminating the “causes” of violence in our society, but this is an ongoing process and has been so as long as society has existed. In the meantime, I do not think it’s wise that we should make it so easy for criminals, assassins, and mentally disturbed persons to obtain things like 30-round ammunition magazines for their handguns.

Per your straw-man comment, what can I say? I believe my point is valid because it reflects real life tragedies that are occurring in our communities. I also feel there are a lot of responsible gun owners – particularly those who want to provide safer communities for their children - who have this same concern. As arguments go, it certainly has more validty than some presented on this thread. In fact, I suspect some of the roosters on this thread share the concern, but don’t want to admit it.

January 26, 2011 at 10:50 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.