Pajamas Media

117 Comments

1. KansasGirl:

Welcome to the Democrat world.

Nov 19, 2008 - 1:31 am 2. Douglas:

Dog bites man. It’s California, what would you expect? Meanwhile, thousands of gangbangers run around armed, but law enforcement is too busy harassing law abiding citizens to be bothered by criminals.

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:59 am 3. David Thomson:

Welcome to the fascist reign of Barack Obama. We no longer live in a country of laws. Obama desires to become our benevolent dictator. Sheriff Sandra Hutchins has decided that she will not even wait until the Anointed One is inaugurated. The real question is this: can we save the United States—or is too late?

Nov 19, 2008 - 3:06 am 4. RF:

“The steady trend towards more liberal concealed carry is also tied to a reduction in violent crime, though a rise in property crimes. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but the presence of a firearm in the hands of a potential victim often prevents a violent crime from occurring.”

It’s not counterintuitive if you use logic, treat it like a differential equation, the first term goes down the second term goes up. If all potential victim’s had firearms, there would be, theoretically, no crime. Of course if the inverse were true…? Oh yeah, that’s what the lib’s want.

Nov 19, 2008 - 3:09 am 5. old vet:

Hutchens’ new policy requires that to get a concealed firearm permit, applicants must prove there is a legitimate threat to their safety and agree to undergo possible psychological, polygraph, or medical testing.

No offense!
But some of the idiots that have been marching out of California lately should not be carrying guns.

Good old southern boy from NC,
don’t you just love it?

Nov 19, 2008 - 3:54 am 6. gnubi:

Will Obama’s heavily funded civilian security service members have right to carry?

Nov 19, 2008 - 3:58 am 7. TomF:

So does anyone know how many of the 1,100 concealed carry permits were used in criminal activity? Sheriff Hutchens should provide this information to help back up her decision.

Nov 19, 2008 - 4:27 am 8. cedarford:

People need to realize that many in certain government positions have interests different than the average member of the public, and will naturally work against the citizen.

Teachers want more of your tax dollars, want smaller class size not to help kids once better-educated in the 50s with class size 30-40, but because smaller classes mean more teachers and less work per teacher. Go figure!

A good number of cops, expecially the brass, have very high opinions of the “heroes” and fairly poor attitudes about “civilians”. Part of their belief system, typified by Hutchens (though many cops are 2nd Amendment supporters…) is strongly against having citizens be armed. They seek a goal of a monopoly on weapons of defense and offense. Yes there will be criminals, but cops believe that the less armed citizens, the safer their jobs will be…and, more importantly….if only “Hero cops” can deal with threats, it creates:

1. A public demand for more “heroes”.
2. It creates more public acceptance of more prestige, pay and special benefit perks for “Our Protectors”.
3. It creates job security..as other municipal may get laid off in hard times..cops can argue that they are best left immune from cutbacks as “armed police are the only thing that protects the public from criminals and terrorist evildoers on the loose” as well as the “unarmed” stuff like rescuing little lost children.

To retain their desire to have “use of force” monopoly, the cop lobbies, like the Association of Police Chiefs, regularly join in anti-Second Amendment court lawsuits and amicus briefs -seeking added restrictions on firearms or outright bans. It makes sense. It is in their self-interest.
But not in the public interest, as firearms ownership has been proven to result in lower crime rates and concealed weapons permits have been shown to significantly deter store and passerbyes from armed robbery.

*************
One “trick” cops use to raise barriers to rival Americans having firearms is to make gun ownership as onerous and expensive as they can possibly make it. With permits capriciously rejected, linking handgun purchase & ownership to only those with a valid concealed carry permit – even if the person just wants a handgun for home defense. In some states, permits are only issued for people willing to make what can be a several hundred mile round trip to the State Capital to be “interviewed”, time permitting, and fill out paperwork at various “steps” in state bureaocracies. Then some are told it may take a year for the “complete review process” to finish and any paperwork error, incompletness or doubt by a bureaucrat could trashcan it all.
Chief Hutchens “additional requirements” of medical and psychological exams, perhaps even a private polygraph test…on top of the 100 dollar permit fee and 20.00-50.00, completely unecessary fingerprinting & “FBI Background check” – is mainly designed to deter those that can’t afford the several hundred dollars in new hurdles.
The hope of Hutchens and other cops and antigun local and state officials is that the more hassle and expense they can throw into the process, the more it will act as additional discouragement to people seeking to keep and bear arms.

Nov 19, 2008 - 4:40 am 9. DoubleU:

Don’t worry, all is not lost, I am sure Sean Penn and the other Hollywood libs will be able to keep their permits.

Nov 19, 2008 - 4:45 am 10. RickS:

“..legitimate threat to their safety…”

Doesn’t just living in California meet that standard?

Nov 19, 2008 - 4:45 am 11. Stan:

This should not be up to the sheriff. How stupid have we gotten when a single official can define a person’s right to carry.

Nov 19, 2008 - 4:49 am 12. Don:

Easy fix that should make everybody happy (at least all those who believe abortion should have as much meaning as removing a hangnail). Make all firearms illegal for civilians to own. Make any crime where a weapon (gun) is used a federal offense. Add to that the death penalty, and the added “benefit” that all death penalty convictions result in the perpetrators mandatory “donation” of all organs, skin, etc to national organ banks. Since we will have many “volunteers” (too many to disassemble in a short time), we’ll have to put some into some sort of “frig” to preserve said organs. So instead of “convicts” we will have “Corpsicles” awaiting their chance to save lives. Really anyone who believes in abortion should have no “ethical” problem with this.

What is always amazing (to me) is the breathtaking hypocrisy of the proponents of abortion being being opponents of the death penalty (think of it as “post natal” abortion. No Problem right?).

Nov 19, 2008 - 5:13 am 13. Sundance 44:

Remember, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
The liberal mind is a strange thing. It is the only flaw in an otherwise fully developed human being.
Only the liberal mind can look at the benefits of gun ownership by law abiding citizens and see a threat.

Nov 19, 2008 - 5:15 am 14. Dennis:

Is this another case that will end its days in the SCUS? Does the NRA have to start a fund to keep going to the SCUS every year? I fear our frears are not unfounded. So many fail to understand that just about every despot comes from the left. She is just doing her duty and preventing some good citizen from standing up to crime.

Nov 19, 2008 - 5:24 am 15. anton:

Cedarford, don’t lump all us cops together like that please. I work in a small town that borders that sewer widely know as Detroit. I push to get as many of my citizens armed and carrying as possible. The cops that oppose right to carry laws all seem to come from bigger cities and most have brass all over them, they have long ago forgotten the street (if they ever even worked on the road) and have become political animals.

The reason violent crime goes down when citizens are armed is sinple; people are risk-averse. Even stupid criminals will choose to steal your hubcaps rather than hold you up if they think you may be armed. The more widespread the impression of an armed citizenship is the lower the violent crime rate, check the two states that have no restrictions on carry laws vs say New York or California.

The incidence of predatory crime is far higher when the crook thinks they are unlikely to face a person capable of protecting themself. John Lott’s “More Guns Less Crime” looks into this phenonema in detail. A close reading of the FBI yearly Unified Crime Reports will show that in states with shall-issue laws criminal assaults by “a person not know to the victim” (i.e. predatory crime as opposed to domestic violence) is much lower. It boils down to the fact that criminals don’t want to get shot any more than you or I, and are willing to modify their behavior to take that risk into account.

As for Sheriff Hutchens hopefully she can be shipped back to the jail where she can push paper and count prisoners (that the real police officers have captured) and leave the good citizens of the county alone.

Nov 19, 2008 - 5:44 am 16. mountainaires:

The Orange County sheriff’s policy is unconstitutional on its face. I can’t believe they’re even going to try it in the face of the recent SCOTUS ruling. I have a carry permit, and live in a “shall issue” state, thank God; my permit is legally obtained, and states have reciprocal agreements to allow travel for those with carry permits. If someone in my county tried to impose such a ‘prior restraint’ ruling on me, I’d take them to court in a heartbeat. Hutchens’ action is authoritarian, arbitrary, and illegal.

Nov 19, 2008 - 5:47 am 17. Ian Thorpe:

It’s the people who carry concealed weapons without bothering to apply for a permit that the authorities need to worry about.

Here in Britain only special police are armed and it is impossible for a member of the public to legally carry a gun, concealed or not.

Result? Only the criminals are on the street with guns. Fortunately our gun crime problems have been confined mainly to inter – gang conflicts but even so a number of innocent people have been killed in gang vendettas that get out of control.

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:05 am 18. RKV:

Shall issue CCW is much liked by Sheriffs. Why? It’s a great way to solicit campaign contributions and to trade favors. The rest of us citizens, have problems with this of course, not that our legislature here in California cares what we think. BTW montainaires, unless and until the 2nd Amendment is incorporated vs. the states, your court case wouldn’t stand a chance (and the California Supreme Court has already ruled such). Keep your eye on McDonald v. Chicago, and hopefully the issue will be settled in our favor.

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:14 am 19. Mike T:

Sundance,

You forget that when guns are outlawed, the outlaws AND police will have them. Not that there is often a difference these days…

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:24 am 20. R a Z o R:

Lived in Fullerton , Orange County , California

for 23 years . Now back home in North Carolina

and it is now a falony charge instead of a

misdemeaner to be caught carrying without a

permit . Hate to do paper work so maybe I’ll

just start carrying a cop instead .

http://.youtube.com/watch?v=DPWXX3rOesY

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:25 am 21. Austin:

There is a long thread by actual CCW holders with eyewitnesses to the most recent meeting of the County commissioners over at warriortalk. You will need to sign up to read it.

http://warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=46998

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:38 am 22. Austin:

Cedarford, this is not an US vs Them issue when it comes to Police. We are ALL on the same side on crime.

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:43 am 23. Michael:

I have worked with police for many years and the great majority are great and reasonable guys. The higher the rank though the more militant they tend to be on guns. They also seem to be more in the camp of there being only two kinds of people, cops or a*******. Fortunatly that attitude is rarer at the patrol level.

As is obviouse to most people here cops can not protect you from violent crime. Except for very rare occations they come after the fact and take a report and maybe find the criminal. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that police are not responsible for the individuals safety, only the safety of “society”. That does not comfort me.

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:59 am 24. anton:

Police are confined to reacting to most crimes, and who wants one following them around all day to provide constant protection? An armed citizen is his (or her) own best first defender and provides a constant background threat to criminals.

I laugh when I see those alarm company adds where they call you to see if you are OK, if you answer “NO, I’m being stabbed right now” what help are they? My Remington 870 says “you can leave now” a lot better than some silly alarm system.

Nov 19, 2008 - 7:39 am 25. Don:

Cali’s just move to Texas if you want to carry guns and get a job, but please dispatch all the liberals that are flooding the state on your way here.

Nov 19, 2008 - 8:33 am 26. California Resident:

I lived in the Peoples Republic of San Francisco for 18 years. I felt I needed a concealed carry permit due to the occasional large bank deposits I carried. I consulted a friend who was a police captain, and he said they could not issue any permits. His advise to me was, “It’s always better to be judged by 12 jurors, than carried by 6 pallbearers.” When I knew I was going into a very dangerous part of town, I was always guided by his words of wisdom.

Nov 19, 2008 - 8:40 am 27. Войска ПВО:

anton writes:

“As for Sheriff Hutchens hopefully she can be shipped back to the jail where she can push paper and count prisoners (that the real police officers have captured) and leave the good citizens of the county alone.

Alas, Anton, she is a PC replacement for the former sheriff who was a real cowboy and is now cross-wise with the law, under indictment for accepting bribes, etc.

While not strictly on topic and certainly not something that would be useful in a CCW situation, readers of this blog who desire to have a firearm can purchase — for a very reasonable price — a U.S. Army surplus M-1 Garand from the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

This organization, chartered by Congress, has the goal of improving civilian marksmanship skills by making various surplus rifles available to those who qualify. One must provide certain documentation (citizenship, evidence of current or prior military service) and pass the Federal database scrutiny. Once purchased, the rifle is sent within a month or so. However, here is the real thumb-in-the-eye to California: once approved, the M-1 will be Fedex’ed straight to your door. There is no muss and fuss with having a local gun deal receive it nor do you have to register the gun in California (although I suspect they will be advised via the Feds). The CMP also sells surplus ammunition at relatively reasonable costs.

As I said, an M-1 is not exactly a weapon that one would carry under a long coat, but for home protection few weapons could be more intimidating to some errant brigand.

Besides, these are real treasures and pieces of American history. I own several that are lovingly cared for. Might be that someday, my descendants will come across these and regard them as would old Revolutionary War flintlocks or Civil War muskets might be revered in this day and age.

Nov 19, 2008 - 8:46 am 28. Gator:

I’m a native Californian born and raised on the north coast. I moved to Lodi in 1999
and couldn’t stand the mess. 3 years ago I moved to Idaho!! you couldn’t pay me enough
or drag me back to that S*** hole…

Nov 19, 2008 - 8:47 am 29. Войска ПВО:

..kapow..kapow..kapow..kapow..kapow..kapow..kapow..kapow..ka-cing!

Nov 19, 2008 - 8:48 am 30. iconoclast:

Washington state is a shall-issue state. Yet, getting less press, the Seattle mayor is attempting to ban concealed weapons on all city property even though state law supersedes city ordinances and does not allow the city to enforce such an ordinance.

Of course, the city will try to harass all legal permit holders anyway. I will continue to carry on parks & recreational properties and await the inevitable confrontation. Should be interesting.

btw, Seattle is the place where the police were ordered to stand and watch while a gang of thugs beat a young man to death. The young man had the temerity to try to protect a young woman the thugs were beating up. Good example of what happens if you depend on the police alone.

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:20 am 31. Harry Truman:

R a Z o R, would you please re-post the link you have in mind? the following one doesn’t seem to work. Many thanks to all

http://.youtube.com/watch?v=DPWXX3rOesY

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:26 am 32. Whitehall:

In California, I thought that the county sheriff had to be elected. In Orange County, the former sheriff was removed for corruption and it seems the replacement was appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

If she wants to keep her job, she will face the voters sooner or later. Orange County is on the conservative side for California so political heat could cause her to change her mind.

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:41 am 33. Robert Hurley:

Can you imagine – having to submit to a psychological test might prevent all the nuts here from getting a gun. I can see why you would object

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:47 am 34. Red_Flair:

Face it people the United States Of America is on the verg of another civil war, all of the institutions that made this country great are being torn apart or have already been destroyed. Marrage is being attacked at a level unpressidented by any other, the legal, educational institutions,political institutions have embraced socialisium and communisum, and people like this sherriff have fallen into its trap. It will be only thru the act of a miracle that the Home of the Free will stay that way.

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:53 am 35. Fantom:

“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

So much for rule of law and the Constitution.

Nov 19, 2008 - 10:01 am 36. Dave Surls:

“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

Yup.

“Hutchens’ new policy requires that to get a concealed firearm permit, applicants must prove there is a legitimate threat to their safety and agree to undergo possible psychological, polygraph, or medical testing.”

My old policy is to simply ignore what folks like Hutchens require.

Nov 19, 2008 - 10:43 am 37. prkw:

First, they’ll want to ban guns.
Then, as in Britain, they’ll ban knives.

Nov 19, 2008 - 10:49 am 38. westToast:

I live in LA and have watched this unfold. This article and the comments are off a bit.

The OLD sheriff handed out CCW permits not to anyone demonstrating need, but to favored pals and contributors.

Some of those pals pulled guns on golf courses etc. The former sheriff was no big defender of gun rights for the regular guy. According to federal prosecutors, he was a recipient of endless wads of cash in return for which he dispensed favors that included CCW’s and some weird badges.

The OLD sheriff was not minding the store: people got beaten up and killed in jails while sheriffs (those people we will pay a pension to for 20 years of useless service) sat and watched TV, ignoring monitors that would have allowed them to watch the cells.

Result: with the OLD sheriff defending himself at his corruption trial with his “long-time mistress” as a co-defendant, (his wife sits there and listens–she will be tried separately)the County needed a replacement: like the voters this year, the County–a conservative one I might add–went outside the corrupt old-boy system to Los Angeles.

They brought back a woman steeped in the idea that “we cops know better.” Why is anyone’s guess: LA Sheriffs are not real improvement over anyone else’s.

But…her revocation of the cozy system of issuing badges and CCW’s is seen as primarily affecting the favord contributors to the old sheriff’s campaign’s and lifestyle. And properly so.

Her system is pretty much what every California county does: make it bloody near impossible to get a CCW. But she is not turning the system on its head. Just eliminating the ability of campaign contributors to get CCW’s. Celebs can probably still get them of course.

Nov 19, 2008 - 11:09 am 39. Don:

OK, knives? Any crime perpetrated with a “Knife” (or a gun) is punishable by consignment to the Organ Banks. We control population growth, we preserve lives that have “value” and we resolve criminality with one action.

Nov 19, 2008 - 11:12 am 40. Dr. Lumplevin:

I am deeply offended at the homophobic language in this article.

Nov 19, 2008 - 11:20 am 41. Whitehall:

west Toast,

Granted that the old sheriff only gave out permits to cronies. The point remains that the permitting process STILL should be more open and not less so.

Let the current holders keep their permits but let other citizens who met the responsibility tests have the permits too.

Nov 19, 2008 - 11:38 am 42. Herr Morgenholz:

Fantom:

“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

So much for rule of law and the Constitution.

Then again, that is the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that is self-enforcing, n’est ce pas?

Nov 19, 2008 - 11:45 am 43. Dark Helmet:

“So does anyone know how many of the 1,100 concealed carry permits were used in criminal activity? Sheriff Hutchens should provide this information to help back up her decision.”

Excellent point.

But let’s take that to it’s next logical step and ask:

What % of crimes were committed by people with guns that did not have permits with those that did?

Then with that answer we can go on to:

What % of those people were already by law, not allowed to have a firearm?

And then:

What % of those people are not suppose to be in the country?

And my favorite:

What % of all those people voted for obammy mammy?

Aren’t numbers fun?

Nov 19, 2008 - 11:53 am 44. "gunner":

number 40, “dr. lumplevin”. unless you’re being sarcastic where do you see “homophobia” in the article, or comments? i’m fairly sure sheriff hutchins is willing to give gays “equality” by denying them carry permits too.

Nov 19, 2008 - 12:00 pm 45. DavidN:

Just a few things to note here. The sheriff who issued these permits was corrupt beyond belief, and everyone in the area had grown tired of him. He had subordinates who were corrupt, also, getting contracts to upgrade part of the sheriff’s office hardware in return for being allowed to carry a badge and a gun, etc. I agree that permits should be made easier to access, but the guys he gave them to were people who’d contributed large amounts of money to his campaign. He also had an Assistant Sheriff whose son kept getting arrested, and then kicked loose because of who his dad was. The whole thing blew up when the kid was finally arrested in a video-taped gang rape, where they drugged the girl first. Cronyism ran rampant here. Now the new sheriff isn’t going to allow any permits at all (unless perhaps you’re a celebrity) like in LA, and we’ll see what that does to the crime rate. Probably nothing, but everyone will feel better.

In California, such permits are at the discretion of local law enforcement. I don’t know precisely how it works, but *city* officials can issue them too, or at least they used to be. Some years ago, I read that Culver City (a middle class neighborhood just to the south of West LA) had issued more permits than LA had. No one said anything, there was no fuss, etc., but of course it didn’t change the way LA did business.

Nov 19, 2008 - 12:28 pm 46. Real Story:

Whitehall:

agree and your point is excellent, but as DavidN notes, the permits the OLD one granted have only prompted wide spread resentment. In granting CCW’s only to fat cats, the OLD sheriff did more to undermine gun rights than the new one. He reinforced the perception that they are “special” and “hard to get.” The conservatives in that county didn’t protest much either. Sad. Another opportunity lost.

Nov 19, 2008 - 12:41 pm 47. Войска ПВО:

prkw writes:

“First, they’ll want to ban guns. Then, as in Britain, they’ll ban knives.”

..must be a bitch slicing roast beef.

Nov 19, 2008 - 1:14 pm 48. Will Becker:

What does one expect when everyone is asleep and ignorant to just who they vote for? Get ready for more of your rights disapearing. The democrats have nothing in their way and can ban anything they wish.

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:01 pm 49. Pat:

“Hutchens’ new policy requires that to get a concealed firearm permit, applicants must prove there is a legitimate threat to their safety and agree to undergo possible psychological, polygraph, or medical testing.”

This policy sounds like it might be vulnerable to a DDOS attack. How many applicants can the Sherriff’s Office test per week, and how much does it cost to process each one? The residents of Orange County should try flooding the office with permit applications and see how it responds.

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:04 pm 50. Fantom:

Herr Morgenholz:

You ask n’est ce pas? I would reply Sic Semper Tyrantus. Both only work if you have the cajones and actionable numbers to pull it off.

Otherwise it is suicide with a Honor Guard to hell.

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:51 pm 51. RG:

“..must be a bitch slicing roast beef.” It is, and they perform circumcision with a brick. hahahaha

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:58 pm 52. Arty:

To be fair, there are some good reasons for the actions of the new sheriff.

The previous sheriff is on trial right now for corruption. One of the things the previous sheriff did was give concealed carry permits to political supporters and financial contributors. There are allegations that all you had to do to get concealed carry permit in Orange County was pay off the sheriff.

The actions of the new sheriff have more to do with sleazy political corruption than anti gun right views.

Arty; Former Orange County resident and proud gun owner

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:58 pm 53. Terry:

The 2nd Amendment is my permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Keeping and bearing arms is a natural, God-given right of self defense that may not be infringed upon. Period.

There are no “permits” issued for being a Concealed Catholic. There are no “permits” issued for exercising free speech in secret. The 2nd amendment is no different.

Nov 19, 2008 - 4:34 pm 54. Don Juan:

As a concealed permit holder for 15 years in liberal Washington State, “an armed society is a polite society”. Seems logical, if a person thinks I may be carrying a firearm hopefully he’ll think twice about trying to jack me up.

Nov 19, 2008 - 5:18 pm 55. Donna V.:

Hurley, I believe, is the citizen of a country which jailed a farmer for defending himself with a gun.

And he thinks we’re nuts.

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:11 pm 56. Ford289HiPo:

39. Don:

OK, knives? Any crime perpetrated with a “Knife” (or a gun) is punishable by consignment to the Organ Banks. We control population growth, we preserve lives that have “value” and we resolve criminality with one action.

And remember….Soylent green is people…………../sarc

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:16 pm 57. Ford289HiPo:

To hell with concealed carry…..Open carry is the way to go!

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:21 pm 58. Anti-gun mania in the OC! « The Daley Gator:

[...] County California. Imagine YOUR Constitutional right to self-defense was determined on the whim of this sheriff In California, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens unveiled a new policy that could cause [...]

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:21 pm 59. California County to Revoke Concealed Carry Permits on Law Abiding Citizens « America’s Watchtower:

[...] does the right to keep and bear arms not give a person the right to keep and bear arms? When you live in Orange County California. The new sheriff of Orange County California has decided that she [...]

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:56 pm 60. Robert Hurley:

Just what we need in the USA is more nuts with guns. I hope those nuts who get the guns don’t live in your neighborhoods

Nov 19, 2008 - 7:05 pm 61. gus3:

Terry:

You said, “There are no ‘permits’ issued for being a Concealed Catholic. There are no ‘permits’ issued for exercising free speech in secret. The 2nd amendment is no different.”

Actually, it is very different. First Amendment rights are negotiable. Do you have a confidentiality clause in your employees’ handbook? Guess what, you just agreed to an abridgment of your Free Speech. It’s legal, because the First Amendment is binding only upon Congress, per its very first words: “Congress shall make no law…”

There is no such qualification on the Second Amendment: “…shall not be infringed.” Period, full stop. It does not say, “shall not be infringed by [some particular government entity or individual party].” As stated, it binding upon all levels of government, and even private parties and corporations, save on their own properties.

You are correct to state that there are no (government) permits to exercise freedom of religion or speech, but they are still negotiable in other ways. The right to defend our freedoms, with deadly force if necessary, was never intended to be negotiable.

Nov 19, 2008 - 7:06 pm 62. Someone75:

To All:

Concealing and carrying is not a right. It’s a privilege – just like a drivers license. You don’t have a “right” to drive a car – you get to once you prove you’re responsible and won’t hurt yourself or others with your vehicle. Why would you have a “right” to carry a weapon in public?

It’s not all about *your* rights. It’s also about MY right to be protected from potential psychos that want to carry their gun into public places where I may be.

Nov 19, 2008 - 7:06 pm 63. Pat:

And these “potential psychos” all scrupulously obey the law, do they?

Tell me another one.

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:23 pm 64. Pat:

“Concealing and carrying is not a right. It’s a privilege – just like a drivers license. You don’t have a “right” to drive a car – you get to once you prove you’re responsible and won’t hurt yourself or others with your vehicle. Why would you have a “right” to carry a weapon in public?”

Because the Constitution specifically guarantees that right. It says nothing about cars. Your attempt to equate the two is ridiculous. (What would be the automotive equivalent of concealed carry? Hiding a Mini Cooper inside a delivery van?)

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:30 pm 65. jdgjt:

Someone75:
Just because you choose to not protect yourself from psychos doesn’t mean that I would choose to not protect myself or others. Violent criminals, in case you haven’t noticed, prey on the weak. If I choose to be armed without advertising it, and there are many others like me, then bad guys may just decide to take their business somewhere else. Besides, you may just be the one I need protecting from!

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:44 pm 66. raven:

someone 75- unfortunately, “psychos” do not obey laws against concealed carry. Generally speaking, criminals do not worry about obeying laws at all. It’s why they are called “criminals”.
And to quell your fears, the misuse of firearms by lawful carriers (and I exclude legal self defense by definition) is virtually nil. I suppose should one search diligently , one could find a few examples every year- contrasted against the many thousands of cases of legitimate self defense.

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:50 pm 67. gus3:

Hey, Someone75:

“It’s not all about *your* rights. It’s also about MY right to be protected from potential psychos that want to carry their gun into public places where I may be.”

If some potential psycho walks into a public place where you may be, you better hope that someone who practices his/her Second Amendment rights is there as well, because that’s the only thing that will help you get out alive. All the laws and all the good intentions in the world won’t stop a nut-case the way a well-aimed bullet will.

Nov 19, 2008 - 10:22 pm 68. RE:

The larger issue is your right to protect your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ from those who would take it from you.

Can Sheriff Hutchens unequivocally guarantee she can protect those in her jurisdiction from assault or homicide? Of course she cannot. The best she can do is fill out a report after the fact. Her ego will not let her admit her impotence. Instead she chooses to render Orange Country residents vulnerable than they need be.

She does not deserve her position and should be replaced with someone a little less full of themselves.

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:10 am 69. Rhonda:

She is so wrong. I have a right to protect my person everyday of my life. She is so wrong. Vote her out next time. Californians deserve better

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:07 am 70. templar knight:

If I remember correctly, didn’t Barack support a federal initiative to ban concealed carry nationwide? I think this issue is about to be decided by Congress on the national level. Elections have consequences, and the rights of gun owners are now in the crosshairs of the Democrats. Although this is not one of the hot-button issues such as health care reform, it will sooner or later receive attention. Prepare yourself for a major fight.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:33 am 71. Concealed Carry Permits Go :

[...] of a firearm in the hands of a potential victim often prevents a violent crime from occurring. Pajamas Media » Concealed Carry Permits Go ‘Poof!’ in California [T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. [...]

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:42 am 72. The Kunt:

“She makes my red state blue.”

Orange County. No guns? Nice to let the terps know that they can Rape, Rob, Murder, and Steal without being encountered by a potential victim with a firearm.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:45 am 73. Someone75:

Okay – I read the responses. You guys are legitimately concerned for your safety? Are you all little scrawny wimps? Do you need guns as a surrogate phallus? I don’t think most people need guns these days. It’s not like we need them to hunt for food, or protect our crops from animals. Maybe you need a gun if you go wandering around ghettos at night, but guns in urban areas just lead to trouble.

Pat:

The Supreme Court made a massive mistake by declaring gun ownership a “right.” If you can calm down long enough to understand what I’m saying, it’s that we should have to prove we are responsible enough to carry a weapon in public, much like we have to prove we are responsible enough to do other potentially dangerous things in public.

But, I’m guessing comparisons are not your strong point. I often find logic and reasoning is sorely lacking in gun nuts like yourself, and that is why I’m always scared when people like you carry weapons. The fact is, you DON’T think before you shoot. If only the courts would make a rule where the gun owner must have graduated from college, we’d see them number of eligible gun owners drop by 75%.

Regards,

Someone(75)

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:39 am 74. Anon:

Thanks Donna V. Hurley is clueless. The nuts already have weapons, which is what he misses.

Someone 75 just doesn’t seem to like the Constitution. He is just like his President-elect and thinks the Constitution is flawed.

Someone 75, if we used your logic then most people would not be able to vote. Just think, there could be a real debate about real issues and we would not have a Marxist narcissist as the President elect. You are the one who can’t think straight.

It’s time for everyone to get a gun while they can.

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:18 pm 75. Someone75:

Anon:

Yeah, you can continue your petty name-calling, but it’s just how people like you avoid substantive issues.

Also – are you so thick-headed that you can’t understand the difference between voting and carrying a gun in public? Voting doesn’t put others in danger. Guns do. Once again, your tenuous grasp of logic fails you. I mean, I cannot speak any more simply. I will refrain from using three syllable words, if that will help, but I suspect it won’t.

As for the charge of “Marxism” – do you even know what Marx stood for? I’m guessing you think you know two things: A) He was an evil man, and B) He hates freedom. Both of which show the depths to which our public schools have failed us.

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:46 pm 76. angry white dude:

If someone gave me California, I’d pay them to take it back. Is there anything good that comes out of there?

Angry White Dude

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:42 pm 77. Horace Wells:

Gee David Thomson:
Obama hasn’t even taken office and has nothing to do with Orange County sheriffs, yet it’s all part of his master plan, what a bloodhound you are!

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:18 pm 78. kender:

I live in CA and don’t have a “permit” to carry concealed and shouldn’t need one. Carrying concealed is the only sure way of knowing one can protect themselves if needed. Believe me, I would much rather carry openly but that will get you arrested even quicker. You can’t always find a cop and sometimes by the time you do it is too late. So until I get caught for carrying as is my Right and get a battle in a court of law I am carrying.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:49 pm 79. mac:

Someone 75,

Want to play the education game? Let’s try one engineering degree, M.A., ABD for Ph.D. 4.0 GPA. Now tell me I’m too stupid to carry a concealed weapon.

What is true is that you’re too damned cowardly to protect yourself. You think that “if only all the eeeevilll, nassty guns went away, so would crime!” Wrong, bonehead. First, the criminals AREN’T going away. Second, they’re NOT giving up their guns. Third, people like you who depend on others to defend them are weak, scared fools who think that there will always be someone who cares enough about their safety to go out of their way to protect them. WRONG! People like you are on your way out of the gene pool as soon as civilization even hiccups, much less breaks down (a la Katrina). Google Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, or the Wichita Horror.

Here’s a hard truth for fools like you to realize, but I’ll tell you anyway just so you can never again say you didn’t know. NO ONE CARES AS MUCH FOR YOU AND YOURS AS YOU DO. NO ONE WILL BE AS CONCERNED IF PREDATORS TAKE YOU OR YOURS OUT AS YOU WILL. IF YOU LEAVE THE PROTECTION OF YOU AND THOSE YOU LOVE IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO GET PAID THE SAME FOR EATING DONUTS AS CATCHING CRIMINALS, YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET.

I’ve never met a gun-grabber yet who had a solid grip on reality. When the day comes that your imaginary safety blanket of security (the police) is gone or busy, you’re going to wish you had taken action to protect yourself. It will be too late by then, however.

BTW, if you think I’m wrong about that “blanket of security,” ask any serving street police officer what they think of law abiding citizens owning guns. If they’ll tell you the truth, they’ll tell you the police can’t possibly be depended on to protect you. There simply aren’t enough of them, and when the day comes that the fiction of crime=jail time is shown for being exactly that, it’s people like you that will be the first prey the predators come for. Good luck; you’ll need it.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:25 pm 80. Radical Republican:

Let me start off by saying that I am currently a resident of the Peoples Republic of Connecticut. I have held a concealed carry permit here since about 1980. I have held a permit that allows me open carry since about 1985. In CT a carry permit means that the firearm must be concealed unless a separate open carry permit, known as a blue card, is issued. I hold non residents permits for Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I have complied with all reasonable requirements with regard to background checks, application fees, letters of reference, etc.

Notwithstanding, I consider those requirements to be unconstitutional. The Second Amendment states, in its entirety, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Who is the militia? At the time of the writing of the bill of rights the militia was made up of two parts. The organized militia, which went on to become the state national guard, and the unorganized militia which constituted the pool of citizens from which the organized militia could draw upon to fill its ranks. The purpose of the second amendment was to insure that if the federal government ever became so onerous, that the people had the means to rise up and replace it with another government more to their liking. The national guard is now considered to be part of the national military. There was a lawsuit when then governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts tried to prevent President Ronald Reagan from deploying some Mass national guard troops to central America. President Reagan won the decision and since then there has not been a question that the State National Guard are actually part of the federal military. So if the “organized militia” is no longer a separate entity from the federal government then the rights devolve onto the “unorganized militia”. Originally this was limited to free white males, between the ages of 16 and 45, not mentally enfeebled, nor felons. As we have extended franchise to larger groups than this the new “unorganized militia” no longer discriminates between the “races” (personally I only recognize one race, the Human race), nor do we discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. If you are crazy, or a felon, you should still be prohibited from access to a firearm, but such determination should be made by a competent court, and not by a law enforcement official acting prophalactically.

In addition to the above reasoning for the protections of the second amendment, the right of self defense against predators, four legged or two legged variety should be very clear. It is necessary to the maintenance of a free state. If you deny this right then you are no longer living in a free state. Give up the title citizen and take on the title subject. Traditionally free men have guns, slaves do not. And as Lenin once said, “ One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.”

Now as for Someone75 comments.

Name calling? This discussion did not resort to name calling until you started to refer to people like myself as “gun nuts”, “scrawny wimps”, and “people like you don’t think before you shoot”. If we were to take each issue in turn and examine them I think I can show that you are engaging in not only ad hominem attacks but fail to logically conduct your argument. “Gun nut” implies a lack of sanity in anyone who maintains that they have a right under the constitution. Would you also consider someone to be a “religious fanatic or nut” if they also held fast to a religion protected by the first amendment? I suspect you would. Would you want to silence conservative voices on talk radio, under the guise of “fairness”? I suspect you would be happy to do so.

Scrawny Wimps? I do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that if you are going to be attacked that there could be more than one attacker. The instances of multiple perpatrators on one victem are too numerous to mention. I may not be able at the hazard of my body, defend myself bare handed against a half dozen teenage thugs, but with my Glock model 20 I may be able to remind them of an urgent appointment elsewhere. Tell you what I will let you use your super ninja powers to subdue them, while I watch from the sidelines. Then let’s judge which approach is more effective at 1- preserving the victem unharmed, and 2- detering crime.

With regard to Karl Marx, and your support for him. Marxism has DIRECTLY lead to the deaths of more than 100 million people in the 20th century. It is corrupt, evil and rightly should be opposed by anyone that has more than three brain cells to rub together. But if you want to believe in Marx, go ahead. I don’t care if you want to believe in the Easter Bunny. Your beliefs do not effect me. But your actions do.
In closing I do have one point I would like to stress. The second amendment ain’t about duck hunting. It is about securing the liberty of a free people. If you don’t want to exercise your right to protect yourself fine. Just don’t interfere with my exercise of that right. I will let you do as you will and hopefully you will let me do as I will. My gun does not represent any threat to you unless you present yourself as a threat of serious bodily injury to myself, my family or those I associate with. And if that bothers you, wouldn’t you like to have the option of returning fire?

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:19 pm 81. CFM:

Someone75, those massively mistaken Supreme Court Justices are, in point of fact, Supreme Court Justices. And you are . . . not. Aren’t you afraid to split a seam from being so full of yourself?

As for “petty name calling” – if you don’t like that game then don’t start it by spouting tiresome, infantile lefty crap about wimps and surrogate phalli.

Clueless twit.

Nov 21, 2008 - 1:12 am 82. Friday Round-up: 11/21/08 « Grand Rants:

[...] and bear: Not in California. Pajamas Media’s Bob Owens reports on an Orange County Sherrif who has instituted a new policy that could revoke upwards of hundreds [...]

Nov 21, 2008 - 7:21 am 83. seven:

Is she revoking permits? Is she crazy enough to believe with 1,100 permits, that number reflects the number of people carrying firearms.

Nov 21, 2008 - 7:32 am 84. Barry 0351:

I live in Georgia and at a recent nieghborhood watch meeting the problem with calling for Sheriff deputy’s to come check out suspicious persons was not being answered by a deputy.
The sheriff stated that they did not have enough deputies to answer calls even the emergency calls.
His advice was to install lights, burglar alarms and dogs along with firearms to keep from becoming a victim.
The facts are: The Police/Sheriff cannot help you when you are attacked and robbed in your own home, you must do the work.
If you cannot defend yourself then all the LEO can do is investigate and attempt to arrest, try and convict the perp after the fact.
This obviously will not help after you or your loved one has been assaulted and killed.

Nov 21, 2008 - 8:12 am 85. Thomas:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Thomas Jefferson

Nov 21, 2008 - 8:53 am 86. fred:

Someone 75 considers the recent Supreme Court decision, ruling that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own and bear weapons to be a “massive mistake.”

If you consider it thus, then enlighten us with your legal wisdom that defends nullifying the 2nd Amendment.

Put it up, or STFU.

Nov 21, 2008 - 12:36 pm 87. arthur:

people have the right to a gun but the government has the right to regulate that right.

Nov 21, 2008 - 1:24 pm 88. Dave:

I think it’s time we drug out the old, but very true, adage; “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Nov 21, 2008 - 1:32 pm 89. EW:

It looks like socialism isnt going to be the only change for the worse with the new illuminati

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:42 pm 90. Blue Crab Boulevard » What’s Coming:

[...] Bob Owens points to the actions of the new sheriff of Orange County, California: In California, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens unveiled a new policy that could cause “dozens, if not hundreds,” of concealed carry permit holders to lose permits issued by the previous sheriff. Did these law-abiding Orange County citizens do anything illegal, immoral, or unethical to cost them their permits? [...]

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:16 pm 91. fred:

The Constitution does not attach conditions to the rights that it enumerates. Including the 2nd Amendment, and so how far can the government go in regulating that right? The presumption should be that the restrictions would need to be on the light side. Plus, the government has to understand the reasoning of the Founders: to give citizens the ability to abolish the government, to not hinder citizens from protecting their persons and property, and to allow them to hunt.

But, I would like to know from whence the argument that the government have the “right” to regulate that right?

Nov 21, 2008 - 7:08 pm 92. Wire Dog:

My Brother in law, a 30+year cop, said once that the police were just armed historians writing about facts after the crime. If we were to put a cop on every corner 24/7, then maybe our safety would be secure, except from the police. I’ll keep carrying my heat.

Nov 21, 2008 - 7:13 pm 93. Someone75:

mac:

ABD? What’s the matter? Couldn’t make it through the dissertation? Sure – lets stoop to your level – lets compare educations: computer engineering – BA, two MAs, and I actually *finished* my PhD. All that and I never had to prop up a weak argument by calling someone a “bonehead.” I guess you missed the day where they explained logic and reasoning, and ad hominem attacks.

Fred:

Why don’t you STFU? You love to tell me to do so, but maybe you should look at the stuff that *you’re* saying as well. As for my reasons for disagreeing with the supreme court, I’ve already laid them out in above posts. Have someone read them and explain them to you if you can’t understand them yourself.

Keep in mind – the supreme court’s decision was not some totally obvious reading of the constitution. It was highly controversial with a significant hermeneutic factor. The world is not black and white, even if you want it to be. The trouble with this country is that people like you have been turning complex issues into simple right-and-wrong situations and then screaming at those who disagree, or simply want to explore issues in more detail.

Regards,

Someone(75)
[Benightedness, n., intellectually or morally ignorant, uninformed.]

Nov 21, 2008 - 10:36 pm 94. McCreary:

I’m one of those 1,100 CCW holders in Orange County, CA. I did not buy my permit, nor was it a gift or political favor. The old sheriff was corrupt, yes, but he had a legitimate CCW policy that was fair to regular people. The very small percentage of CCWs he gave to friends and contributors were revoked years ago. This is just a power trip by the new anti-gun sheriff.

Nov 22, 2008 - 12:20 am 95. mac:

Someone 75,

You’re the one who loves ad homs and insulted the intelligence of gunowners. Most of your postings are nothing but rude remarks and outright insults. As for finishing the Ph.D, I’m doing my dissertation–while making a very good +6 figure salary. Want to match wallets? Let’s do it.

You’re not only too stupid to protect yourself, you’re so stupid you deliberately aggravate those who might be willing to help you in need. If you don’t like guns, fine. That’s your business. It’s my Constitutional right to have them. You don’t like that, too bad for you. You want to come try to take mine? I’ll be waiting for you anytime you want. Make your will out first.

Nov 22, 2008 - 12:28 am 96. red spike:

I suggest before anyone makes comparisons to the current CCW holders as being recipients of “Carona” CCW handouts, they watch the enire 8 hours of the meeting on the OC BOS website. The constant resounding theme of the over 80 speakers was that they never met nor contributed to Carona.

Apparently the expert in L.A. on former Sheriff Carona’s CCW policies has been living under a rock too long, that, or he has had a subscription to the LA Times too long wherein he now believes everything in print from them is gospel.

Nov 22, 2008 - 6:56 am 97. Soldier_X:

I will give up my guns the moment legislation is on the books that allows me to sue the appropriate government entities (police, sheriff, city, state, county, federal etc.,) in the event that I am a victim of a crime.

The courts have ruled that the police bear no specific obligation to protect individuals, but instead bear a general obligation to the public to provide service. You cannot sue the police cause you got your ass whipped, even if you have a restraining order.

Less than 1% of the US population are police or military. Of that 1%, how many are actively patrolling the streets? How many are off duty? How many are on other assignments? That’s a pretty slim number of folks that are bearing that general obligation to the public to provide police services, rather than actively protecting you personally.

Nov 22, 2008 - 11:56 am 98. Paul in NJ:

…applicants must prove there is a legitimate threat to their safety and agree to undergo possible psychological, polygraph, or medical testing.

After which the decision is still up to the obviously hostile-to-self-defense sherriff. Let’s see how many permits are in force in a few months.

Nov 22, 2008 - 3:39 pm 99. fred:

Someone 75,

What’s so complicated about the 2nd Amendment and the legal challenges against it? The language of the amendment might be a tad murky, but I just don’t see it anywhere written that there are qualifications defined by government that give it license to abridge the Constitution in this matter.

Again, I have not been around PJM for a long time and I don’t have the time to dig into the past to find your legal erudition on the subject. Put up the argument you have against the 2nd Amendment, or STFU.

If there is a civil war in this nation’s future, it’s people like you who are permanently going to be on the losing end of it. No quarter asked and none given.

Nov 22, 2008 - 7:50 pm 100. fred:

I’ve been trying to bait “Someone 75″ into giving me the best arguments against the 2nd Amendment he has or what’s out there.

I would like anyone who knows of these arguments in favor of abrogating the 2nd Amendment to put them up here, particularly the ones that are most used by lawyers and judges who have success in laying the Amendment aside.

Nov 22, 2008 - 8:04 pm 101. JH:

Contrary to “popular belief”, former Sheriff Carona DID NOT, “just give them to his friends”. Granted, some of his “friends” did receive permits, but anyone applying for one, has to pass a background check administered by the FBI, not by OCSD. So, even IF his “friends” did get permits, it’s because they passed the aforementioned background check. Next myth, the “friend”, who happened to be his martial arts instructor, DID NOT have a valid permit at the time of the incident on the golf course. To date, to the best of my knowledge, no current permit holder has done anything to violate the conditions of said permit, therefore, no current permit had any need to be “reviewed”. And don’t even get me started on the whole stupid badge debacle, which was another unnecessary “witch hunt”, undertaken by Sheriff Hutchens. We in Orange County have much more important “business” that our newly appointed Sheriff could be and probably should be focusing on, instead of things that were actually not even broken. BTW, and I’m not going to get into a dispute over this one, so don’t bother, as much as I believe in the 2nd Amendment, at the current time, it has nothing to do with CONCEALED CARRY. The two may be related, but are separate issues. Until there is more defining legislation to include CONCEALED CARRY within the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment, any argument enjoining them is irrelevant and futile. And just to be clear, I am an NRA Life Member and as such, am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment and an OCSD CCW license holder.

Nov 22, 2008 - 10:55 pm 102. Someone75:

Hey Guys -

The thing is, I’m not actually anti-gun. I think people should be allowed to own guns. I fully understand the obvious and tired point that the people that jump through the hoops to obtain guns are typically not the ones committing the crimes. Criminals will always obtain guns outside of the law, no matter what the restrictions happen to be.

The thing is, once I started reading posts here, I have a much different view of 2nd Amendment people. Frankly, I’m shocked at what I read. You people are forcing me to re-evaluate my stance.

I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t amused by the pettiness involved here – what with people wanting to compare educations, wallets, etc. It’s like a religion. I had no idea people were so single-minded about the issue. You can take my remarks as ad hominem attacks, but that just shows you don’t understand what an ad hominem attack actually is. My point about the gun as a surrogate phallus is a perfectly legitimate argument grounded in a long psychoanalytic tradition. And, it really explains why so many of you want to protect it against all reason.

I’m amazed at some of these responses. Some of you threaten to kill me if I “try to take your gun.” Do people still talk like that? Are we in the old west? Funny – I thought this was the 21-century and that we were much too civilized to threaten violence, practically unprovoked. When I labeled some of you ‘neanderthals’, it was not an ad hom, but rather a very apt descriptor. But then again, you’d have to be familiar with the subtleties of the English language to understand it (and that, my friends, is a plain old insult).

As for my comments on Marx, I never once expressed support for him. All I did was point out that nobody here probably understands anything about Marx. He was an idealist, like Bush. Communism was an ideology, which was bound to fail. I don’t support the man, but I also hate to see him maligned by people who essentially have no idea what they’re talking about. Basically, I hate dismissive dolts – and there’s an ad hom for ya

Regards,

Someone(75)

Nov 23, 2008 - 12:15 am 103. Jayd:

What If:
What if some one decided to challenge this as a “poll tax” set to disinfranchise the poor ______ (you fill in the racisl, social or economic group)? Or for that matter, any of the trump cards the liberal Dems have used over the last few decades?

Nov 23, 2008 - 5:28 am 104. mac:

Someone,

Let’s start with this: you’re a lying troll. I’ve watched your Obama-loving garbage on this site for too long. Now you’re going to say you’re “not actually anti-gun.” Oh, just kidding, right? People of your Feinsteinish ilk would ban them immediately if given the opportunity. Gun owners have seen your type far too often. We saw them in the U.K., we saw them in Australia, we saw them in Canada–and we’ve read about them in 1930’s Germany. We know exactly what you’ve got in mind.

The nation’s conservatives have watched as you leftist scum, with your MSM media helpmates, lied, cheated and sold yourselves out to foreigners to get your candidate elected. To say that we don’t trust you is to be guilty of vast understatement. We’re perfectly justified in that belief since you’ve shown you’ll stop at nothing to achieve your aims.

Note that nothing much is selling in America right now. A major reason for that is because the stock market has already rendered its verdict on The One by tanking.

No, nothing much is selling at all–except guns and ammunition, and there are people standing in long lines to get that stuff. Why are those people doing that? THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY DON’T TRUST LYING LEFTIE BASTARDS LIKE YOU AND YOUR DEM BUDDIES.

The equation is very simple: groups like you Dems, in favor of disarming the populace, want to do so because they intend to do something the populace won’t like. Knowing that an armed populace can make the cost of fulfilling that intention prohibitively high, they seek to preemptively remove the main factor that will escalate their cost of enforcement. Nothing new here; that is what all dictators, and would-be dictators, do.

There are lots of us out here who know history, and know that a free people surrendering their arms is a mistake they only get to make once. When the arms go, the freedom goes with them.

The Second Amendment was written by people who had just escaped subjection to a government they considered a tyranny. They wrote it because those men knew their possession of arms was the major factor in achieving their liberty and that they could not have done so without them. They wanted their posterity to possess the same power to defy unrighteous government they had, hence the Second Amendment.

Truer words were never spoken than that the Second Amendment is the amendment that makes all the others possible. You say it’s like a religion? Only if a deep belief in the Constitution of the United States is a religion.

As for this being the 21st Century and being too civilized to threaten violence “practically unprovoked,” you need to understand that because we don’t trust leftie bastards like you we have no sense of humor on this issue. NONE.

There is not one damned bit of give on this issue. Loose talk from the left about taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans puts lots of us in a very seriously unpleasant mood. This is particularly so after such an egregious example of leftist disregard for the electoral laws of the United States as The One’s campaign provided.

If you put yourself in the ranks of those who wish to enforce any future abrogation of the Second Amendment, be prepared for the consequences. Trust me, if you’re part of the lot trying to illegally confiscate my guns, there wouldn’t be anything dismissive about it. You’ll have my full and complete attention–I always try for sub-MOA.

More likely, being the sleazy, lying character you’ve shown yourself to be in your defense of Bama, you’ll hope you can stand back and send “Doodad Pro” to do the dirty work.

Whelp.

Nov 23, 2008 - 8:32 am 105. JH:

Wow, what with all the claims by some to be so “educated”, some with multiple degrees, there sure is a whole lot of anger and animosity being spouted forth here. Name calling and telling others to STFU?! Whatever happened to substantive, civil dialog. In this country, let alone the rest of the world, NOT EVERYONE is going to agree with everything (I know this may be news to some, judging from the previous posts), but what we should be able to do is reasonably discuss those issues, without the personal attacks and belittling remarks. And when the dust settles, we can all agree to disagree on some issues and then work together on those which we do agree on. JMHO

Nov 23, 2008 - 2:24 pm 106. Nik Nak:

In a county rife with bank robberies, the sheriff is inclined to fiddle with policy, rather than actually address the current rising crime situation. The man hours spent adjusting policy could have been spent trying to catch the bad guys. They have already said that they are not there to prevent crime, just be law enforcers …. keep your ears pealed .. there will be more news from CA…. citizen driven and good news.

Nov 23, 2008 - 8:44 pm 107. A Liberal:

Only idiot republicans hypocrites would say such stupid things. Obama doesn’t want your guns, the law enforcement community does.

You repukes are all law and order people right?

So, go ahead and be ignorant and blame the libruls for all your woes. When this economy crashes because of stupid republican economic policies of your “pro gun” president and the hungry masses come and eat you and your family (because most of you old fat asses couldn’t survive a walk across a parking lot let alone WWIII), you can blame who is really at fault: Yourselves for voting republican.

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:31 am 108. JH:

Well, thanks to A Liberal, I guess it was nothing but a pipe dream, thinking there could be an intelligent and reasonable discussion. Some people are just hell bent on hate speech. They have no ability to have a civil discussion. All they do is spew insults, thereby showing their own lack of sense and civility. Whether or not you agree with someone else’s ideology, there is no reason to insult and belittle those who disagree with you. But then again, we are to often a result of our education, upbringing and social influence.

Nov 27, 2008 - 9:04 am 109. New Sheriff in Orange County, CA bans civilian CCWs - INGunOwners:

[...] Orange County citizens do anything illegal, immoral, or unethical to cost them their permits? Pajamas Media

Dec 5, 2008 - 2:08 pm 110. tricked you:

4. RF: writes
It’s not counterintuitive if you use logic, treat it like a differential equation, the first term goes down the second term goes up. If all potential victim’s had firearms, there would be, theoretically, no crime. Of course if the inverse were true…? Oh yeah, that’s what the lib’s want. Nov 19, 2008 – 3:09 am
=======
Let’s not stop with the math at that point because when just one has a firearm and the will to use it and does on anyone he sees then others might have a slght bleeding promblem.

Now if all the others obayed the law but had fire arms but would only use them to enforce the laws and protect themselfs. This one bad guy has no gun unless he steals it which he likely will.

Then we have let us say 98 armed good people 1 armed bad person and one unarmed good person or did he go by another gun to peplace the stolen gun and now carries rather than keeping it locked up at home?

Now we 99 armed good men and one armed bad man.

Well the fact he likes the easy life I figure he will try and figure out were you live. Wonder who he will pick on now. How many times might revisit your home?

Dec 7, 2008 - 10:39 pm 111. JL:

73. Someone75:

That was a very immature statement. I am a fairly big guy and an ex-boxer with years of martial arts training, but I haven’t seen enough movies to make me think I am macho enough to stop a couple of attackers (with or without weapons) on them using my bare hands. I certainly wouldn’t risk the life of my family, friends, or an innocent stranger on my macho skills.

I wouldn’t be happy about it, but I would feel much more prepared for the situation if I had a firearm on me to help deter the threat and to even the odds if absolutely needed.

I have defended innocent people being attacked more than once, in ‘nice’ parts of town, and have never had to draw my legally carried firearm.

Dec 13, 2008 - 4:15 pm 112. Gilbert Dowling:

I live in California and as a republican and a firearms owner also
having a CCW in California yeah I don’t agree as a law abiding citizen
and with a great deal of respect for law and order my take an armed state
is a safe state. Local policing agencys should not be the only folks able
to carry and I two believe if your armed a thug on the street will more than
likely think twice about robbing someone and let me also tell you having pulled my weapon and holding it on a bad guy is not a good feeling because at a split second it could be all over end of story in my case the bad guy went to state prison for along time and I went home to my family safe. I long for the day that law abiding citzens in my state will have their rights not violated. GD.

Jan 1, 2009 - 1:03 pm 113. JP:

This is exactly why I enjoy living in washington. All you have to do here is pass the FBI background check, get finger printed, and pay the $60. I also heard the California is the hardest state to get a concelled pistol license.

Jan 3, 2009 - 12:55 am 114. 2nd Ammendment Supporter:

It is obvious that Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens has not read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution or the decision rendered on June 26, 2008 – The US Supreme Court Upheld the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in the land mark case ‘D.C. vs Heller’ — The right to keep and bear arms.

No government agency may prevent any US citizen in good standing, ( Not a felon ) may purchase a fire arm without unreasonable process.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:26 am 115. AZKopper:

I’m sick of the “Concealed Weapon Permits will lead to blood in the streets” argument and mentality.

44 states have CWP’s, and most are “Shall Issue”, meaning you may only be denied if you are a prohibited possessor (felon, restraining order, etc). The crime rates in these states are lower than CA’s.

A study done in the 90’s showed that CWP holders are hundreds of times less likely to commit crimes than non CWP holders.

This is all about control, not about safety.

Thank God I left the OC years ago.

Feb 13, 2009 - 12:45 pm 116. 45yo sailor:

Someone75,
As for your statement about education requirements, did you know that most of the military and some of the police that serve our fair nation do not have a college education? These are the people that protect your freedom and carry firearms daily on the job. Some of us were born poor and could not afford to go to college or we had to work to support sick parents and put our siblings through grade school. I have my permit for the state where I live and back in my home state I can legally walk down the street with my gun on my hip. I am niether small, frail, nor a wimp but I will carry any place that it not illegal to carry such as govenment facilities, schools, and courthouses. The crime rate goes down in every state that has recognized the 2nd Amendment. A college education does not give someone common sense or courage. I would rather have a high school grad with common sense armed than a college grad who is too stupid to figure out the simple things required to survive. Take any backwoods farmer’s boy and he will probably be safer handling a firearm than the average college punk that has had mommy and daddy buy his way out of any mess he has gotten into. By the way, the frmer’s boy is also more likely to serve his country and carry a weapon to preserve YOUR freedom.

Feb 14, 2009 - 1:30 am 117. Alexander C:

When guns were banned in Australia recently, there was a huge upsurge in crime — now why is that? The criminal will always have a gun — getting arrested for gun possession is no big deal for a criminal because the crime he/she intends to commit with that firearm is a thousand times worse. Now with an armed citizenry it is a completely different story — true the criminal will still have the gun, but using it becomes infinitely more problematic because he/she might get killed. Cops are not there to prevent crime — they cannot. They clean up after the crime is committed … it is each one of our responsibility to prevent the crime, but unarmed, we are victims waiting to happen.

May 25, 2009 - 12:56 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: