Friday morning’s slaying of Tacoma school teacher Jennifer Paulson and the subsequent fatal shooting of her suspected killer, Jed R. Waits of Ellensburg, is a stark reminder that sometimes bad things happen to incredibly good people.
This despicable crime also brings out the best and worst in people, as demonstrated by the comments left by readers on feedback forums at the SeattleTimes, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Tacoma News Tribune. Almost as if by reflex, gun prohibitionists were screaming that this would not have happened if guns were restricted or banned, while firearms owners retorted that this happened in a place where guns aren’t supposed to be allowed.
Let us keep this civil and remember, there are grieving parents, school colleagues and children in this mix.
This is an appropriate moment to remind ourselves that laws passed to prevent this sort of thing, including the gun-free school zones act and laws regarding harassment orders have once again proven absolutely worthless. The law against murder did not stop Maurice Clemmons from gunning down four Lakewood police officers last November, and obviously did not stop Miss Paulson’s killer.
He was not deterred by a court order that was obtained by Miss Paulson in 2008. Detailed coverage of this is available from the News Tribune, and it will no doubt soon be repeated in the other regional newspapers.
One thing that was erroneously reported earlier in the process was that this was some kind of “domestic violence” situation. Miss Paulson was not involved in a romantic relationship with Waits. That much seems very clear now, several hours after her life was stolen at a very young 30 years. Indeed, it is abundantly clear that she wanted nothing to do with him, hence the 2008 court order. They met some years ago at Seattle Pacific University.
Paulson had gotten a civil anti-harassment order against Waits in September 2008. He was supposed to not contact her, not follow her and stay 1,000 feet from her house and Birney Elementary. Over the previous months, he had been leaving roses and teddy bears for her, according to court documents.- Tacoma News Tribune
What about Waits? When Pierce County sheriff’s deputies pulled him over following a short pursuit near 166th and Canyon Road – ironically within walking distance of the Tacoma Sportsmen’s Club with its shooting ranges – he could have surrendered. Instead, he fired a round at lawmen and missed. Deputies fired back and didn’t miss. Was it “suicide by cop” or just the end of a really bad morning? At this point, who cares? He is dead.
Waits was reportedly jailed a week before Friday morning’s shooting because Paulson spotted him following her. He bailed out on Tuesday. He was ordered to appear in court March 15.
What possesses people to commit such a crime? Among the more hysterical remarks in the reader feedback columns are those that blame the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. That is utter nonsense. The Framers never intended for people to abuse their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and the NRA has been a leader in calling for tough punishment of people who perpetrate such outrages. Indeed, the NRA and Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms championed “Three Strikes” and “Hard Time for Armed Crime” laws, both of which were the products of the firearms community, not the gun control lobby.
Waits was booked into Pierce County Jail the night of Feb. 19 and charged Monday in Tacoma Municipal Court with violated the order. He was released Tuesday after posting $10,000 bail and was scheduled to appear in Tacoma Municipal Court again March 15.- Tacoma News Tribune
How many shootings on school campuses have been prevented by “gun-free zone” laws? The law didn’t save Rebecca Greigo from being murdered in her office at the University of Washington. It didn’t spare Samnang Kok from being murdered at Tacoma’s Foss High School.
Why is it that only the firearms community and police seem to understand that passing this kind of law is not a panacea to violent crime?
Miss Paulson’s killer will never harm another soul, and he is beyond punishment by the courts. Trying to punish a million Washington State gun owners with some new law because of Friday morning’s outrage is not the answer. However, that probably will not stop the gun ban lobby from trying to capitalize on this crime. Get out your stop watches and start counting.
Visit with the Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone
Austin: Howard Nemerov
Boston: Ron Bokleman
Charlotte: Paul Valone
Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard
Chicago: Don Gwinn
Cleveland: Daniel White
DC: Mike Stollenwerk
Denver: Dan Bidstrup
Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones
Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel
Knoxville: Liston Matthews
Los Angeles: John Longenecker
Minneapolis: John Pierce
National: David Codrea
Phoenix: Douglas Little
Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell
Seattle: Dave Workman
St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann
Tucson: Chris Woodard
Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
They are pretty useless Dave. Great write-up, sad story.
First - my condolences to the family of Jennifer Paulson. What happened is terrible.
Second - on gun ownership. We are fortunate to live at the time and the place, where we do not have to deal with physical force every day. This allows us to forget that rules and laws do not actually protect from violence and physical force. Only presence of another force deters criminals, or repels their acts should they decide to commit violence. That is the reason police and military carry weapons instead of law books. And that is the reason all citizens should carry as well. There is simply no other way to protect our lives. This may seem unjust or archaic to some, but this is the real world we live in, and believing the fairytale of a weapon-free life for everyone is naive at best.
only the craziest gun nut would argue more guns would prevent such gun tragedies; and only the most callous individual would use this tragedy to promote more death and violence via gun.
Stay classy Dave and the rest of your fellow Examiner gun nazis
I'm not sure who a restraining order is really going to stop. If the concept of "this person isn't interested in you now, ever, period" isn't enough for them to leave them alone, there's obviously severe psychological dysfunction. I imagine a lot of people have experienced unrequited affection, but most don't become stalkers.
Legal consequences obviously mean nothing to someone like this. They're probably pre-suicidal for some time before their final act. Unfortunately it seems the only way to stop someone like this is to pre-emptively (and illegally) see to it they "have an accident" before they act on their psychotic rage like this.
Only the most callous misanthropes with a hatred and disregard for innocent human life would advocate that all be as helpless as was this poor woman who was killed by another callous misanthrope. Yes, wow, this was meant for you. I hope you are alone in the world, because you cannot be trusted to value the lives of others. Hence, your wish to make all helpless.
"Wow", you're a sad puppy.
I carry daily, and I do NOT promote violence or death. I promote increasing my chances of survival if I am attacked with deadly force. My sidearm is my last resort, and I hope to God I never have to use it against another human being. There will be severe emotional consequences if I ever do have to, but I will still be alive and breathing and able to spend time with my family and friends, the ones I love, and they will not be grieving over my death because of my inability to defend myself.
Wow, I'm pretty sure you won't be back to read this but I want to ask you two simple questions which you are free to answer on your own:
1) How would the lack of guns affected the mental state of Jed Waits? Let me remind you that Waits has additional options: knives, vehicular homicide, arson, and more.
2) How would the posession of a gun affected Jennifer Paulson's chances of survival?
What would make this tragedy worse is if we find out that Ms. Paulson was 3 days into her 7 day handgun waiting period (if she decided to purchase a gun in response to Waits's release on bail).
If one tries to explain their duty towards their own safety, and the safety of their loved ones, if one tries to explain the God given right to self protection, then do not bother. The anti-gunner will be steeped in their own ignorance and will not be open to any other thought.
There will always be the opportunity for bad people to do bad things regardless of the weapon used. That said, many more people use a gun for offensive purposes than defensive ones. Yes, the majority are responsible gun practitioners, but it is the multitude of others who will eventually succumb to the ease and readiness of the firearm to perform a violent act they never intended to do when they bought it in the first place. How much blood must be spilled in the name of the 2nd Amendment?
I wonder how things would have turned out if Miss Paulson, recognizing the danger, had taken it upon herself to defend herself with a firearm? I think it's fair to say that SELF defense is the BEST defense.
P.S. Of course, she would have had to ignore the gun-free zone, but being alive is much better than being legal (especially if the gun-free laws themselves are unconstitutional and hence illegal). And (surprise surprise) many people do just that. They just don't tell.
There will always be the opportunity for bad people to do bad things regardless of the weapon used. That said, many more people use a gun for offensive purposes than defensive ones. Yes, the majority are responsible gun practitioners, but it is the multitude of others who will eventually succumb to the ease and readiness of the firearm to perform a violent act they never intended to do when they bought it in the first place. How much blood must be spilled in the name of the 2nd Amendment?
GDog, I'm appalled at your comment.
"...succumb to the ease and readiness of the firearm to perform a violent act they never intended to do..."
If they never intended to do it, they'd never do it. Does possessing a firearms somehow suddenly change you into a violent killer? Maybe if you're talking about killing sheets of paper. Violent criminals are going to commit acts of violence using whatever they can get their hands on. And believe it or not, far more people DO use firearms defensively than offensively. You'd be surprised at how many law abiding citizens carry daily. You just never hear about people defending themselves because the vast majority of news channels focus on what criminals are doing. It's all you ever hear about.
she was a liberal who didnt beleive in guns! He was a liberal who beleived guns 'make' you evil... i.e. he was.
sometimes justice is self-serving.
end of story.
There will always be the opportunity for bad people to do bad things regardless of the weapon used. That said, many more people use a gun for offensive purposes than defensive ones. Yes, the majority are responsible gun practitioners, but it is the multitude of others who will eventually succumb to the ease and readiness of the firearm to perform a violent act they never intended to do when they bought it in the first place. How much blood must be spilled in the name of the 2nd Amendment?
"And believe it or not, far more people DO use firearms defensively than offensively"
Just carrying doesn't make it defensive. I'm comparing using the firearm defensively (as in warding off an attacker) vs. shooting someone that was not attacking (family dispute, suicide, etc.). See the Kellermann study from the mid-80's and how it shows using a gun for home protecting actually increases you and your family of risk. (See wikipedia entry for Arthur_Kellermann)
Simply having a firearm doesn't increase the risk to one's family. Irresponsible handling does. Keeping it locked up in a 500 lb safe when you're not around or carrying is common sense. Leaving it loaded on a coffee table is just plain stupid.
I suppose closed-minded individuals such as yourself will never get it. At least until you or your spouse is jumped and raped. Who is gonna protect them in that critical moment before the police arrive? YOU are your first line of defense. Take a couple of classes, get some range time in, and equip yourself with the tools needed to defend your life!
If you absolutely insist on living in a gun free society, get the f--k out of this country.
Paddy, I love your response. It is a prime example of how when faced with facts, all you can resort to is "Get the f out of this country." I can sense you pointing the barrel at me saying that statement.
Yes, there is a risk of violence to my family. There is a greater risk of one of the family members deciding to pull that gun out and use it against a family member or themselves. I know this first hand because my father used a shotgun to kill himself 53 years ago. Could he have done it in another way? Sure. But I believe the convenience of the gun made the decision much easier than other methods. That is one of things the Kellermann study discusses; firearms are too easy and quick to get to when tensions are escalating or when emotionally unstable. And though people shoot themselves with a gun, they seldom bought it with the idea in mind they were going to use it on themselves - they bought it for "protection".
Once again, another response based in emotion.
Sorry to hear about your father, but it was his choice that killed him.
Here's some stats for ya: California and Washington D.C. have some of the strictest gun laws, and some of the highest crime rates. Yet Vermont and Alaska have some of the most lax gun laws and some of the lowest crime rates.
Coincidence?
Didn't think so.
Move to Canada or England.
Paddy, I love your response. It is a prime example of how when faced with facts, all you can resort to is "Get the f out of this country." I can sense you pointing the barrel at me saying that statement.
Yes, there is a risk of violence to my family. There is a greater risk of one of the family members deciding to pull that gun out and use it against a family member or themselves. I know this first hand because my father used a shotgun to kill himself 53 years ago. Could he have done it in another way? Sure. But I believe the convenience of the gun made the decision much easier than other methods. That is one of things the Kellermann study discusses; firearms are too easy and quick to get to when tensions are escalating or when emotionally unstable. And though people shoot themselves with a gun, they seldom bought it with the idea in mind they were going to use it on themselves - they bought it for "protection".
I don't know why my responses are duplicating - my error and I apologize. It isn't intentional.
Actually, the data you state makes perfect sense, that the larger population centers with more restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates than places like Vermont and Alaska. It is hugely tied to people density. The gun laws don't slow down the use of guns which is why I don't advocate restrictive gun laws. What I do advocate is people realizing that owning and carrying a gun does not make you more safe - it adds to the risk of killing those near and dear to you.
And, sorry, I'm not going to move. This is my country and I will spend copious amounts of time using facts and logic to steer people away from thinking guns are necessary for protection. I guess you'll just have to shoot me to get rid of me. Sounds like that is your answer to people like me.
GDog,
You bring up Arthur Kellerman's study on gun use. i forgot the details of this study but I remember it is often used by such groups as VPC and Ceasefire who also use erroneous figures like substituting annual or decade long numbers to claim daily figures. This association puts his study into question if not more directly refuted by subsequent studies conducted by scholars like Kleck and Lott.
How much blood must be spilled? An arbitrary figure would be enough to fill the Indian Ocean though less than a cubic centimeter(cc)would be preferred.
GDog
Sounds like you have a very irrational fear. I wonder how many pairs of pants you'd go through if you saw someone open carrying. Sounds like you need a shrink, or a nice padded room. You seem to equate gun ownership to homicidal tendencies. Well, I've got news for you. Yesterday, millions of gun owners didn't break the law. They didn't kill anyone, they didn't threaten anyone, they didn't put anyone at risk.
Besides, if having a gun puts people at risk, does that mean police officers put everyone in danger too? It may not be far from the truth. They only have to qualify every 6 months. Many gun owners go to the range and practice far more often.
Really, people, get a grip on reality. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They've been doing so since the story of Cain and Abel. If I set my 1911 on the table, it will kill nobody.
More people are killed by cars each year than guns. Does owning a car suddenly put everyone at risk? Or are irresponsible choices to blame
Well G-Dog, lets see you quantify the actual risk. Lets see you do the numbers then put into real perspective what that actual risk is. We are sitting riveted to our seats waiting for the dramatic stark groundbreaking revelations you apparently have.
After all there is the USDOJ Gang Activity report 2008 that identifies who is responsible for up to 80% of violent crime? (see Chicago police study 1990's, and NYC police Firearm discharge reports also)
We of course also have the scientific basis that just by being near an inanimate object that it's supernatural powers predisposition itself to increased violence (that is called a fetish). Much less that it could by itself communicate with a person and coerce, force, or convince them to commit a violent crime as they heard "voices" coming from said inanimate object (description of schizophrenia).
So we wait with enraptured anticipation for the actual FACTS to be presented. Anyone want to bet I will die of old age before that happen
Why is it at a Pierce County Courthouse, that the Judges have been required to be left behind for generations?
Oh yes all the recent killings, and all the recent Judges?
Oh, that's right, Judge the difference between civil and criminal, as shown best most recently with another Pierce County Judge in the backroom with a prostitute?
So, after an anti-harassment order from 2008, was signed by a judge???
It's still not a red flag two years later, in 2010???
Article III Section 1.
"The judicial power...shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...Sec 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only..in adheraing to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort..."
SECTION 5 GENERAL DUTIES OF GOVERNOR. The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.
Well guys, somehow I've been able to live my life without carrying or shooting a gun. I haven't been attacked or threatened. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who has had the NEED to carry. The fact is that unless you put yourself in harms way, the need is a rarity. There is violent crime out there, but I don't use that as an excuse to be like you manly gentlemen and pack deadly force.
Someone suggested I have an irrational fear. I put it to you who don't like my position that YOU have an irrational fear. You think some cretin is going to jump you and your family and when they do, boy are they in for a surprise. It's like you have some kind of hero complex you want to fulfill. I'll never understand the fervor gun owners have about owning guns. I've always suspected it is to compensate for some kind of masculinity impotence but I'm not a psychologist. But for what ever reason, it goes beyond the right to bear arms.
But G(D)dog,
If this statement is true?
"The fact is that unless you put yourself in harms way, the need is a rarity. There is violent crime out there, but I don't use that as an excuse to be like you manly gentlemen and pack deadly force."
Would this also apply to our "manly gentlemen" with a gun, badge and crown victoria, acting as judge, jury, and executioner?
Tacoma Police Chief Brame ring a bell?
And Shawn Roe? who shot Kristine Fairbanks, also with assistance from a Judge on the Mason County County Court of Confused Judges!
Mary Catherine Roe carried a gun to her teaching position at Nisqually Middle School in Lacey, saying she needed it as protection from her husband?
She had a domestic-violence protection order against him and told deputies that she had carried the gun for about a month?
In 2007, Shawn Roe was convicted of unlawful imprisonment, a felony, and malicious mischief, a gross misdemeanor, in Mason County.
He was arrested July 21, also in Mason County, for failing to report to his probation officer and for consuming alcohol. Roe was sent to jail for 60 days, 30 of which were spent outside of lockup on electronic home monitoring, according to the DOC. Roe finished this jail sentence on Aug. 10 and reported the next day to his community corrections officer.
Mason County Judges, also attended the same school of ignorance, as the Pierce County Judges,
I wasn't around then; I just read the account of Brame's murder suicide. Would her carrying a gun helped protect her against a trained officer? I doubt it.
All of my statements regarding the carrying of guns for protection excludes police officers who have been trained to know when and how to use deadly force. They have a tough job and have my complete respect. They are out on the front lines to protect us. Once in a while, as was the 2003 case with the Tacoma chief, they turn from protector to murderer. It is rare.
That is what is so laughable about the concept of owning a gun for protection. Even the police chief, who probably never envisioned using his own gun in a violent crime, ended up doing so. Then you pro-gun types snare onto this case as justification of needing to carry in order to maintain the peace because you can't depend on the police. Sorry, I'll take my chances with the men in blue even if one fails once in a while.
It is rare? What Planet are you from G(D)og
And that why they only gave the Mayberry PD a six shooter?
Everett police officer Troy Meade, has been charged with manslaughter in the June 10th shooting of Niles Meservey, 51. Snohomish County Deputy Prosecutor Mark Roe indicated that the use of deadly force was not justified in this case.
Meservey was shot seven times from behind while boxed in by three cars. Witnesses indciated that Meservey posed no immediate threat or imminent danger to anyone at the time he was shot. Mead had first used his tazer on Meservey through the open driver’s window of Meservey’s Corvette. When that didn’t deter Meservey the officer allegedly stated “Time to end this,” then opened fire on the Corvette.
Hey, Here We Go Again, you can stop with the "we must take the law in our own hands" pitch. It isn't working. Like I said, these are rare events. It does not excuse the need for the public at large to have guns for protection and ignores the consequences of having those guns for protection.
I'm not advocating the banning or restricting of gun ownership. If you want one (or two or sixteen) to make you feel better, fine. Just don't kid yourself into thinking that you have it for protection. It's a lie. I suspect deep in your soul you have it because if fulfills a different need, maybe it gives you a warm satisfaction of power you can't get from anything else. But don't try and justify it because you need it for protection.
Yes it is a lie?
Kitsap County Sheriff v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Guild
From the Washington State Supreme Court, and lying is a requirement for placement as a deputy sheriff.
And since lying is also known well with the "men in blue" at the Seattle Police Department's 54 "Brady Cops" be careful when Car 54 arrives!
GDog:
"Well guys, somehow I've been able to live my life without needing or wearing a seatbelt. I haven't been in a car accident or been hit. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who has had the NEED to wear their seatbelt. The fact is that unless you put yourself in harm’s way, the need is a rarity. There are violent car accidents out there, but I don't use that as an excuse to be like you manly gentlemen and wear my seatbelt."
Does that help it make sense for you?
The Kellermann study from the mid-80's was debunked years ago. It has been proven that guns are used to prevent crimes over 1 million times a year. Many times without firing a shot. In the best of cases, the perp gets perforated and saves the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
You should seek help for your hoplophobia.
"GDog"
I've been reading your comments, as I read all comments left by readers.
You weren't around when Chief Brame shot his wife, and then himself? So, you are not from around here?
Perhaps I should explain about Washington self-defense statutes. You don't "take the law into your own hands" here, you act within the scope of statute in defense of yourself or another person. I wrote a book about this subject: "Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities." Perhaps you should read it and gain some insight.
The Kellerman Study to which you allude has been debunked. Probably not a good idea to depend on that one.
Nobody says you, personally, need to go buy a gun.
GDog,
Four things:
.
[1] No man-made law has =EVER= stopped anything from happening.
.
[2] Safety is a FRAME OF MIND and NOT a condition of existence.
.
[3] You can =NEVER= be safe from anyone or anything, no matter what you do, how, when or where you do it, or with whom you might do it: YOU CAN NEVER BE SAFE.
.
[4] We live in a violent universe, and all around us —including within ourselves— violence is the order of the day. PREPARE FOR IT.
.
Internalize the above, and learn to face reality head on.
.
If you refuse? You WILL become a victim of your volition.
.
Now, if you desire to be a Pollyanna about life, be my guest. The rest of us will prepare for the eventualities of life.
The banners live in a fantasy world where once they make guns illegal, they will just all up and disappear on a nationwide basis. Good luck with that. They've had 40 years to do this with coke and pot and heroin, and they're still freely available in every neighborhood. When drug prohibition successfully makes drugs unavailable in America, I'll ST*U about guns. Otherwise, gun-banners can ST*U.
And G-Dog, our way of handling people like you isn't to shoot you. It's to put a big sign on your lawn that says, "I DON'T BELIEVE IN OWNING GUNS." We find attitudes like yours solve themselves.
G-Dog
You need to know this: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the onus of protection lies with the individual itself. Meaning that the Supreme Court said that the Police only protect the community as a whole and the police cannot protect individuals period. You need to protect yourself - imagine that your community got caught in a tornado, you survive and there is looting - what are you going to do? Fight them with a nail file?, basebal bat?, or a gun. Or you get assaulted and the police receives your call and they don't repond, you can't sue them - period. Hey, there is a old saying - don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Always the same, since 1889, and like the post Lincoln States
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
"When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied."
Tacitus
Comparing carry a weapon and using seatbelts as methods of personal protection was exactly the reason the Kellermann study was done. The basic question was, we made car fatalities go down with attention in preventing them, what can be done to reduce wrongful deaths with guns? How can they be made to be safer? Kellermann found out no one asked the question whether it was safer to own a gun for protection or not.
Was the study debunked? Not with facts but supposition. The opposition have no hard numbers of how gun protection prevented crimes, just guesses. Then the NRA thinking this kind of study could threaten action used its political will to stop federal funding through the CDC on any studies involving guns. They don't want studies done; they are afraid of the facts that could be brought out. It may cause inconveniences the gun owners would not like to have.
By the way, will someone get the picture? I'm not advocating any further gun laws. You all seem to think otherwise.
I would just like to make a comment here. The FBI came out with a report either last year or earlier this year that said that starting in late 2008 and continuing through 2009 there was a significant drop in violent crime. This was at the same time that gun sales were through the roof. I also read an article where felons in prison were asked what they feared most. Was it the police? No. What they feared most was an armed citizen! As was stated earlier, sometimes just the mere presence of a gun is enough to deter a crime. I am an older female, I own 2 pistols, and I carry a .45 legally, for my self protection. I have spent the time and money to be trained with my pistols and I go to the range on a regular basis. If you choose not to have a gun for self protection, that's fine, I respect your choice. Please respect mine!
As far as the Armageddon many of you point to as the reason for keeping guns, I have a lot more faith in the future of this country than you do. To you it is about individual power, not the power of the community.
Besides, I think it is a smokescreen for the real reason you want to have that powerful shiny machined metal of deadly force in your hands. It has nothing to do with protection. It has nothing to do with rights. It has everything to do with personal power.
We need no study GDog, it's been studied forever.
We had a great many horses, of which we gave Lewis and Clark what they needed, and they gave us guns and tobacco in return.
Chief Joseph
"I will not believe our labors are lost. I shall not die without hope that light and liberty are on stedy advance...And even should the cloud of barbarism and despotism again obsecure the scirnce and liberties of Europe, this country remains to preserve and restore light and liberty to them. In short, the flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism. On the contrary they will consume those engines and all who work them."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Sept 12, 1821
You forget the "gun free zone" of Ft Hood.
The "power of the community" GDog?
The same power that put Hitler into office?
The same power that nailed Jesus to the cross?
That "power of the community" matching gang violence, shown best throught all time forever.
Oh yes, the individaul right, the right that never matters, in the lie known as a democracy?
An Indian respects a brave man, but he despises a coward.
Chief Joseph
All men were made by the Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers.
Chief Joseph
An Indian respects a brave man, but he despises a coward.
Chief Joseph
Did the Great Spirit Chief, know the Supreme Ruler of the Universe
We need no study GDog, it's been studied forever.
We had a great many horses, of which we gave Lewis and Clark what they needed, and they gave us guns and tobacco in return.
Chief Joseph
"I will not believe our labors are lost. I shall not die without hope that light and liberty are on stedy advance...And even should the cloud of barbarism and despotism again obsecure the scirnce and liberties of Europe, this country remains to preserve and restore light and liberty to them. In short, the flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism. On the contrary they will consume those engines and all who work them."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Sept 12, 1821
GDog, the power you speak of has nothing to do with the gun. Any power a person has lies within them, not in some inanimate object. A gun may make some people feel more powerful and those people probably shouldn't have weapons of any kind. My gun makes me feel SAFER, not more powerful. In a violent confrontation, I have as much a chance of being hurt or killed as my attacker does. All the gun does is level the playing field for me. With my gun I also have an equal chance of surviving. I'll take that chance, thank you. I don't know why you persist in arguing here on a pro-gun forum such as this; the other posters have made it clear they don't agree with you and you are not going to change any minds here today. We do not agree with you or your arguments, nor do you agree with ours. I really think you have made your point and are now just wasting your time. Post all you want to, you will not change gun owners minds and you will just frustrate yourself.
Story at Boston, where Real Community Organizers hung out, during a Tea Party, in Boston.
John Qunicy Adams, and his Judicial Appointment, explaining the current community problems, just like today and this shooting from democracy's great education system, when your politician is as left behind, as you judge.
"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and
intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."
Justice Joseph Story
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!