Bill O’Reilly is a gun rights advocate like Adi Himelbloy [not shown] is a Jenny Craig spokesperson. It kinda makes sense—until you think about it. Adi is way too sexy for Jenny’s target market and O’Reilly hearts gun control. The Foxenator wants background checks on anyone who even thinks about buying a gun, supports an assault weapons ban and considers firearms training a must. In other words, O’Reilly’s happy to erect “common sense” barriers for Americans seeking to exercise their allegedly un-infringable Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Why? Because the Foxpopulist doesn’t trust the people with guns. He believes in gat gatekeepers. In this the anti-spinmeister is hardly alone . . .

In Alabama—yes, Alabama—the editorial board of the Gadsden Times are uncomfortable with new legislation that would remove local sheriff’s discretion over the firearm permitting process.

Now, a person applies for a permit and undergoes a background check. County sheriffs have the final say-so, however, and can reject a permit even if the applicant checks out.

The new proposal would remove that discretion and force sheriffs to issue permits to any applicant who passes the background check. It also would make pistol permits valid for five years instead of one, adjust the fee structure for permits and allow an issued pistol permit to be used as a background check when a gun is purchased.

An NRA official said giving sheriffs the final call on pistol permits is “subjective.” Sheriffs across the state aren’t happy with the idea and say they’re in the best position to know who in their jurisdictions doesn’t need to be toting a gun.

Well they would say that wouldn’t they? I wonder how many African Americans living in the Yellowhammer state—past and present—would disagree with both the sheriffs’ decisions and, more to the point, their power to make those decisions.

In these enlightened, post-racial (or overly racially sensitive) times, you’d fully expect the Gadsden Times to argue against the O’Reilly-esque gatekeepers. If so, you’d be wrong.

We agree, not because we think sheriffs should have more clout (this issue aside, it can be argued that they already are the most powerful political officials in their respective counties), but because we support local control in such matters. And unless supporters of this plan can document specific cases in which sheriffs have abused their discretion, we see no reason to change the status quo.

Lest we forget, American gun control’s roots lie in Southern racism. After the Civil War, the whites working the political levers of power created gun control laws to disarm African Americans. And thus suppress their freedom. Again. Still.

So far as I’m concerned, the Gadsden Times has it exactly backwards. The system whereby Alabama sheriffs control gun permits is guilty until proven innocent.

Which it can never be because it isn’t. Whenever you have someone deciding for someone else whether or not they should be able to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights, the system, and the person promoting it, is inherently corrupt.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: an American citizen should be able to walk into Walmart, buy a gun, buy some bullets, put those bullets in the gun and walk out of Walmart. Anything less misses the entire point of the Second Amendment.

That said, I understand O’Reilly position on gun control; a position he adopts because he doesn’t want to seem “extreme.” But a word to the man and those who share his [cleverly disguised] elitist views: “reasonable” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

45 Responses to Random Thoughts About Bill O’Reilly, Walmart and the Age of Reason

  1. “And unless supporters of this plan can document specific cases in which sheriffs have abused their discretion…”

    There is a false assumption here…it is that ONLY “abuse” is a problem. In fact DISCRETION IS THE PROBLEM. The fact that they OK a given permit IS THE PROBLEM. They don’t have that power under the 2A. I couldn’t care if they OK’d EVERY PERMIT. Sent everyone home with a doughnut and a cup of coffee too. They don’t have some magical power that supersedes my natural rights. Nor the express instruction of the US Constitution.

  2. As far a Bama, I’am kinda shocked, I figured this wasnt SOP in that AOR.

    For Billy, this is standard, he has always been mushy on gun rights and the 2nd, so no surprise there.

  3. Sadly, we live in an age where opinions are given the same weight as facts. You will never see Costas or O’Reilly debate Gary Kleck or John Lott because it would quickly end the debate. Keeping the debate alive keeps ratings up.

    And why should a sheriff decide who gets a permit? Last time I checked, they have absolutely no training in detecting crazy.

  4. Agree with “almost” everything you said. Except this statement:

    “I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: an American citizen should be able to walk into Walmart, buy a gun, buy some bullets, put those bullets in the gun and walk out of Walmart. Anything less misses the entire point of the Second Amendment.”

    Okay, let’s see, serial rapist just released from Huntsville, Texas: Every gang banger in town: every career criminal in our revolving door prisons.

    Let’s not forget all the nut cases on the streets because our mental health system in this country stinks.

    With rights, also comes additional responsibility. That should include firearm safety training. We see enough examples of people being harmed or killed by untrained / poorly trained individuals.

    That should require someone who has not forfeited certain rights and privileges of citizenship due to their actions (convicted violent criminals, drug dealers, etc. )

    So, I am good with background checks, and mandatory safety training (or some proof of it).

    Firearms are serious tools. Not to be taken lightly. With any dangerous mechanical “equipment” like a car, truck, circular saw, forklift, drill press, or gun……should come safety training in the safe use of that “equipment”.

    Now, the sheriff thing? That’s got to go. My God, give that to Lupe Valdez in Dallas County??? What a nightmare.

    Sorry Robert, it does not fly. In a perfect world, maybe. But not now, not here.

    • “Firearms are serious tools. Not to be taken lightly. With any dangerous mechanical “equipment” like a car, truck, circular saw, forklift, drill press, or gun……should come safety training in the safe use of that “equipment”.”

      Show me anything on that list, other than a motor vehicle, which requires, by law, safety training. Wait, scratch that. Include the motor vehicles, because they don’t require safety training to purchase, either. You do not have to have a drivers’ license to purchase a car. So you just made a list of “serious” items that do not require training, and moreover, are not guaranteed by right, and yet you want to impose training requirements on something that is guaranteed by right? I don’t think so, pal.

      • Sorry Matt, laws do exist. In the workplace, where that equipment is used. OSHA enforces the federal statutes that require safety training in the workplace.

        The presumption in the law is that if you purchase it, you plan on using it. Have you purchased and registered a car lately. Try that with no license, and, in Texas, without proof of insurance.

        So, in your own words “pal”, I think so.

        • And people who use guns in the workplace, like cops and armed security, do get training, and that’s fine, because their employer requires it. Even OSHA rules don’t apply to businesses under a certain size. But every single item you listed can and has been used in a private, non-commercial situation, where there are no applicable laws regarding training of any kind. Hell, I can rent a forklift from Sunbelt rentals right up the road, and it’ll come with nothing more than a cursory “this lever goes up and down, this lever tilts forward and back; here’s the keys.” So again, your premise that firearms (and all those other things) should have training required by law doesn’t hold water.

        • Sigh….Matt, are you purposely trying to miss the point??

          Or are you one of those people who actually rejoice when some idiot lets his child play with a gun and a 2 year old child dies?

          I find it hard to believe that ANYONE would object to having people handle firearms safely.

          So, here is where I stand, in simple words.

          If a mandatory 2 hour firearm safety class or proof of one being taken was required for the purchase of a firearm, by all 50 million gun owners in this country, AND it resulted in saving the live of 20 children a year, or 10 or 5.

          Then, for that reason alone, and NO OTHER, any moral, responsible person would be happy to do it.

          Question is, are you one????

        • I’m not nitpicking. I think my very first response summed it up quite succinctly. If there are no laws mandating safety training on the purchase of non-guaranteed by right “dangerous items,” how can you justify mandating that training (and thus, putting another hurdle in the way of ownership) on the purchase of another item that is guaranteed by right? And don’t tell me it’s because firearms are more inherently dangerous. Roughly 6 times more adults and roughly 15 times more children die from accidental drowning every year than from firearms, and yet any white trash can walk into WalMart and buy a kiddie pool (and most do).

          “I find it hard to believe that ANYONE would object to having people handle firearms safely.”

          You’re equating me objecting to mandated safety courses with me being OK with unsafe firearm handling. Those are not remotely the same thing, and one being true has no bearing whatsoever on the other.

          The “for the children” BS is just that, BS. I have no children. I have no prospects for children. I very occasionally have small children at my house. I would be perfectly comfortable letting them have the run of my house, unsupervised, without fear of them getting into my firearms, and I have never taken a course specifically on firearms safety. So for you to tell me that you would have me mandated to take a 2 hour safety course is just complete and utter bullshit, and claiming it’s “for the children” just freights it with irrelevant emotional baggage.

          I suppose by your definition that makes me amoral and irresponsible. This situation is acceptable to me.

        • Nit-picking? Well that is exactly what YOU are doing.

          Yes, more die from drowning. yada, yada, yada.

          Still totally ignoring the point to keep discussion going ….okay.

          First, WE are the gun owners. We are the ones that INSIST on our rights.

          So, my original statement. WITH RIGHTS, COMES RESPONSIBILITY!! That concept too hard for you?

          As responsible gun owners, we want, no, we NEED to be better than the rest. Be proactive, not reactive.

          You mention another hurdle. What? Showing proof you have, through some means, class, military service, whatever, learned how to handle a firearm safely.

          WOW!! Such a hurdle for you to overcome.

          Now, the kid thing. Not emotional. Simply my opinion that 1 childs life saved is worth the 2 hours of your precious time.

          And before you go off on that subject. Safety classes, in every human activity have ALWAYS proven to lower death and serious injury in that activity.

          So, in summation, enough of this.

          Make it simple, go join your buddy, Mikey numbers on his site, he likes to argue uselessly as well.

        • JPD: “WITH RIGHTS, COMES RESPONSIBILITY!! That concept too hard for you?”

          So some random 2 hour class is going to magically instill responsibility in people? How are you going to mandate that responsibility? Are you going to pass “safe storage” laws to ensure that the gun owners follow through on their government mandated responsibility? Are you going to then mandate that there be periodic inspections to confirm that they’re conforming to the safe storage laws? Where does it end?

          Yes, mandating safety training is an additional hurdle. Someone has to decide what that class will consist of. Someone has to teach it. Someone has to pay for it. So yes, it is an additional step in the process. The ease of overcoming it is irrelevant.

          “Simply my opinion that 1 childs life saved is worth the 2 hours of your precious time.”

          You’re entitled to your opinion, right up until it impacts my liberty. I was a Cub Scout, and a Boy Scout, and I’ve been learning about gun safety since I was big enough to hold one, but (until I got my concealed permit, which was well after I purchased my first firearm) I’ve never done anything official, nothing that came with a certificate. So I would be mandated to take this class, to please you. I don’t need to spend “2 hours of my precious time” taking some class that makes you feel better. You want to feel better? You take the class.

          “Make it simple, go join your buddy, Mikey numbers on his site, he likes to argue uselessly as well.”

          Wait, so somehow, by arguing against mandatory safety classes, you equate me with the anti? On what planet does that logic make sense? From where I’m sitting, you sound infinitely closer to him than I do, because he also wants to force implementation of a bunch of more or less meaningless rules (including comprehensive background checks and mandatory safety training… sound familiar?) to make himself feel better. However, I’m not going to equate you to him, because I think he’s anti-American, anti-freedom, and a little nuts (and since he’s an expat, also completely not entitled to have an opinion), while I think you’re merely misguided.

          I’m done with this. You and I disagree. Ain’t America great?

      • One further point. On your statement about cars. Yes, you can purchase, but not USE a car. Without license and insurance.

        You are just looking for something I said to nit pick. Not having a valid argument to my statement, you tried to make something of nothing.

        So……….pretty lame.

        • Well actually you could use the car on your own property (like a farm or ranch) without a license, registration and insurance couldn’t you? I think you only need that stuff if you plan to drive public roads.

        • Incorrect. You can use a car without a license or any training on private property – so you’re 100% legal until you go on public roads.

          But like every other “point” you tried to make, you have no ground to stand on and simply want to promote infringing on people’s rights because of your irrational fear. Gun owners like you, who wish to restrict our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms, do far more harm to our cause than any anti-gun person can.

        • @ JDP: I think people like you should take a mandatory communication class before you exercise your 1A rights. You know, so you use “safe” language that won’t offend anyone and cause a physical confrontation…or worse.

    • JPD, I usually am in agreement with your comments. But i lived in an America where you could mail order a gun straight to your door with no background checks and the only waiting period was for the check to clear if you didn’t send a money order.

      Right before I moved to California in 87 I made my last gun purchase as a free man. A snubbie .38 that I filled out 1 form for, paid for it and a box of shells and carried both out to my car.

      With freedom comes risk. But in my opinion, I haven’t researched the numbers, we had a safer country then. I cannot support mandatory requirements to excercise a right. No more than I could support poll taxes or literacy tests for voting.

      • Safer in the 80’s?? No, afraid not. Department of Justice has the numbers.

        My comments do not address “freedom”. What we have with 2A is a right, conferred to us, by the framers of the constitution. “Freedoms and rights” enjoyed by the citizens of any country usually, like ours, came with a price tag.

        I always laugh when I hear comments like “god given rights”.

        God did not give us “rights”, or guarantee us health, wealth, and a long happy life. Somebody “earned” or paid a price for the ‘rights’ we enjoy today.

        Moving on………..I stand by my original comment….”Rights come with a price… to exercise those “rights” in a RESPONSIBLE WAY. Call it a price tag if you will.

        Put in another way…..in this country, we get a free ride with many of our freedoms that few other people on the planet have. However, when we break the laws of this country, let’s say through a violent criminal act. Part of out punishment for our actions is that our society takes away “some” of those rights.

        That concept, of having rules by member of a society to live by, and the punishment earned when you break those rules, have been around since Cain whacked Abel with a rock.

        We all look at the igotd’s with disdain and contempt. Rightly so.

        On top of all that, look at the message we send to all the fence sitters and gun grabbers. When we are willing to make a commitment to go over and above what is required.

        Why?? 1. Because we value our “rights”.

        2. We are willing to stand up and be counted as the most law abiding (which we are) in our society.

        3. But, more important than our precious 2A, more important than beating down the gun grabbers, is that it shows WE CARE. For others, for human life.

        It is simply the right thing to do.

        Take a 2 hour safety class?? Wow, what a huge infringement……

        And don’t even throw that “well it is one step down the road to hell” statement I keep hearing.

        Please, read history. Gun laws have been around since they invented the silly things.

        I still have a gun case full of the things, and Uncle Sam has no idea what kind or how many.

        I can pack up tomorrow, go shoot on my acreage in East Texas and nobody has to be notified. Try that in most other countries.

        Most everyone here is ready to wet their pants when someone (Mr. Costas) calls for gun control. What better way to knock down ALL the arguments calling for gun control. Than to show EVERYONE that we are a community of people that RESPECTS firearms, and are WILLING to own and handle them in a RESPONSIBLE way.

        That, my friend, would REALLY piss off Bloomberg. Hell, for that reason alone, we should all run out tomorrow and take a class. I will bring the donuts.

        • Ignoring the Constitutional issues for a moment, mandatory training would be a useless, empty gesture that will do absolutely nothing to lower accident rates or assuage the irrational fears of gun control advocates. These are individuals who, like any blind political shill, that are more than willing to overlook any fact that is inconvenient to their views as a matter of course. In most states where legal, concealed-permit holders must attend mandatory classroom training. (In Ohio, I had to sit through 10 hours of it.) These citizens have undergone this classroom training you advocate so strongly for, and have usually been subjected to an extensive background check. These individuals are also statistically some of, if not the most law-abiding citizens in a state. Yet despite all evidence to the contrary, these law-abiding citizens are still overwhelmingly painted by gun-control advocates as vigilantes with itchy trigger fingers, or would-be Dirty Harry’s with no greater desire than to turn the country back to the days of the Old West.

          Responsibility has nothing to do with anything to a gun-control advocate’s positions, and it is not something that can be taught in any short-form training session; it requires a level of maturity and commitment that rises from life experiences; not a federally mandated curriculum. Someone who wants to use a firearm for ill, or who will be irresponsible in its handling will not suddenly change based on the droning voice of an instructor.

          Further, the rights in the Constitution of the United States were not conferred upon the people by the Founding Fathers. They are the rights infringed upon by British rule, that the citizens of the United States earned in victory and demanded from their representatives. In our Republic, power does not lie with the government, it lies with the people; and the Second Amendment was designed to fully vest this power with the citizenry. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights were the rights that predated the creation of the Constitution and held by the people, not the state.

        • Your mandated safety class would sure be a botch bitch to the mother of two who just left her crazy ex husband under threat of death.

          “Damn, I sure hope my crazy ex doesn’t come after me and the kids before I can take this class in two weeks.”

          L.A. riots- 10 day waiting period for people while hell rains down around them. If they are mandated to take a class, again, imminent threat and a major barrier to protection. We can’t assume that it isn’t a big deal, just because we wouldn’t be affected. All people must take an 8 hour driver’s ed practical. I personally don’t care, I did it, but could you imagine how many people would be out of luck for a long time? Bad legislation. Great idea, but responsibility kinda requires one to take the initiative themselves.

          I can’t remember the court ruling, but I remember this quote: “A right delayed is a right denied.” Your idea creates a delay, and therefore denial, of a right.

        • Yep, JPD, sounds like “common sense, except once again, you equate state mandated requirements with personal responsibility; they are diametrically opposed, one is tyranny, the other is freedom.

          Go ahead and recommend a class in safe gun handling techniques, that’s common sense, require a class before I can buy a gun, that’s tyranny and a gross violation of my G_d given right to self-defense.

          And yes, I say G_d given, because my right to defend my life exists without the need of government approval,

        • So I guess anyone who doesn’t go along with this new age agenda of making personal sacrifices and caring for the good of every human being is marked as having the 21st century Scarlet Letter, a “disregard for human life”.

          Unless it’s one of my friends or family members who dies I don’t care what happened to some corpse I see on the news. I am not at all personally or legally responsible for what happens to others if I have no ties to an incident whatsoever. I’m not obligated to care either.

          If a kid kills himself with the loaded gun his dad left in the bedroom closet then dad’s a moron, he’ll be punished, and that’s that. I shouldn’t have my rights altered just because irresponsible people I have no connection to allow others to do stupid things and die as a result.

          Sure, if I saw some random guy bleeding profusely on the sidewalk after he got stabbed I’d try to help and call an ambulance, but that’s because I’d be right there in the moment. That logic doesn’t apply to incidents I’m not associated with in any way.

          I don’t have to care about or make sacrifices for the people who do something stupid with an object just because it bears functional resemblance to one that I own. If they fuck up that’s their problem, not mine, and I shouldn’t be required to do anything “for the common good”.

        • So I guess anyone who doesn’t go along with the new age agenda of making personal sacrifices and caring for the good of every single human being is marked as having the 21st century Scarlet Letter, a “disregard for human life”. Honestly, I could care less.

          Unless it’s one of my friends or family members who dies I don’t care what happened to some corpse I see on the news. I’m not at all responsible for what happens to others if I have no involvement in the incident whatsoever.

          If a kid kills himself with the loaded gun his dad left in the closet, then the dad’s a moron, he will be punished, and that’s it. The rest of us should not be obligated to follow the “we must do something” crowd and allow our rights to be trampled just because irresponsible people allow others to do stupid things and die as a result.

          Sure, if I saw some random guy bleeding profusely on the sidewalk after a car crash, I’d try to help and call an ambulance, but that’s because I’d be right there in the moment and feel responsible for his immediate well being. That logic doesn’t apply to incidents I’m not associated with on a personal level. I don’t have to care about or make personal sacrifices for people who do something stupid with an object just because it bears functional resemblance to one that I own.

        • Long time lurker, first time poster. Well said JPD.

          It is my opinion that the political concept of giving up an inch on current gun laws will eventually lead down the road to removal of 2A rights is absurd, and has long been used as an argument against any type of gun control.

          I wont feed this flame any further, but there are those of us who feel that with this 2A right should come responsibility and accountability. Whether accountability by the fact we are all armed (as citizens) and doing something irresponsible I may be shot by fellow citizens is a valid argument. I just feel that this should not be the only vehicle for accountability.

        • The right of self-defense is a right that predates civilization JPD. It exists in nature in virtually every animal species. It is NOT dependent upon any law, religious doctrine, court decree, legislative parliament or law enforcement opinion. In that sense, it is a “god-given” right indeed.

    • That would be fine if it actually worked to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, lunatics and idiots. But it never has and never will. Anyone who wants a gun badly for whatever reason can and will get one. You know it, Sarah Brady knows it, Chuck Schumer knows it, the entire gun control movement knows it, they don’t care because it is only the normal, law abiding citizen they want to disarm. They want the crime and violence just like Rahm wants a crisis, they need one to exploit to maintain their positions and power.

  5. I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly, he’s just awful. I wish they would take that jerk off the air. Those of us who have not committed a crime should not have all of this crap that they dump on us. I wish we could go back to the good old days where everyone was expected to have a gun and it wasn’t second guessed.

  6. As a resident of Alabama I am really hoping this legislation goes through but more for the convenience of a multi-year permit than because it’s hard to get a sheriff to issue a permit. Even though we are currently a may-issue state it might as well be shall-issue. It’s not like NY where no one can get one. If you pass the check, you’re in and for $10 a year it’s not a bad deal.

  7. I watched O’Biley refer to Semi-autos as Machineguns. I think I saw spittle spewing forth as he said it. Must have had something to do with that Kool Aid he’s been drinking. I barely ever watch his show anymore, NOKO unicorns are so much more entertaining!

  8. O’Liely has been trying to find ways to be palatable to a “broader base” than the good ol’ conservative hardline that Fox has depended on for years. I don’t think he’s any more conservative than he is anything, really- I don’t take his comments so much as anti 2nd Amendment as much as it is anti-anybody but him and his buddies. Like many of these talking heads, he’s often described as a dude who recoils at the opportunity to meet with his viewers, and that’s not even the armed ones! He’s just another one of those “better than you” types who lives behind gates and works behind armed security. Left, Right, Up, Down, these guys are always in favor of anything that further separates them from us.

  9. Bill O’Reilly is a conservative, but he has an overly simplistic view of things. He also is from New Jersey, where everyone is anti-gun. You’re born that way there.

  10. As an AL lawyer, just a few thoughts and info about our gun laws:

    Sherriffs were given this discretion during the Jim Crow era of the last 1/4 of the 19th century. It was so only the “right”(read white) people could carry concealed. Farago is entirely correct.
    In practice today, no citizen with a clean criminal background is denied.
    However, the lack of a training requirement means we don’t have reciprocity with many “shall issue” states(although all our contiguous neighbors grant the courtesy, as do several others).
    All attempts to change to a “shall issue ” system are killed by the state Sherriffs’ Association because of the considerable revenue they might lose. They fear that the state police will get the revenue instead.
    As a result, AL CCW holders have to get an out-of state permit(from FL, for example) to to carry in other states.
    “Sigh” It’s a bummer.

  11. I think O’reilly/Hannity/Fox…is becoming less and less influential…if ever they were. The majority voted(unless you believe it was rigged..ya think? How many of them?..that’s another story)the country go in a different direction. The O man, not THE O man, I feel, is pandering for viewers lost. That channel didn’t alter the outcome and a lot aren’t watching, me being one of them. As far as I’m concerned Bill and Bob went left and are playing for a different team. They need the spotlight and what better way to get it…guns are bad. And when you’re on that side you get the Feinstein’s, Pelosi’s, Streisand’s, Chavez’s et al on your side. I’ve gotten tired listening to the mavens discuss there opinions…all they are…opinions. And I’ve heard enough. We’ll be dunking Direct TV too…too much garbage..IMHO.

  12. Also, as a note, the pistol permit they refer to in this article is a concealed carry permit, not an ownership or purchase permit. As far as walking into any gun store, plunking down your money and walking out with a gun and ammo, so long as you pass the background check, you’re good. I don’t think that it was really made clear in Farago’s article, or the Gadsden Times.

    I know the sheriff in my county on a social basis, and once asked him how many permits he’s denied on his discretion. He said zero.

  13. I think we need a mandatory 2 hour safety class prior to buying Ginsu knives, bleach, household cleaning products and getting a prescription medicine filled… Especially if we have children in the house.. While we are at it require a ten day waiting period before letting people buy an oven, turn the electricity or water on in their house, or have any toy with parts small enough for a 3 year old to choke on (with the mandatory 2 hour class prior to the waiting period a well, including a pop quiz at the end)… To quote a friend of mine, I am not responsible for other peoples stupidities… Why should we all suffer any kind of requirement prior to purchasing a firearm because there are stupid/crazy people out there? Especially when you consider the fact that we are surrounded by dangerous items that can do harm every day if our lives?

  14. O’reilly knows little about guns other than the kind his bodyguard carries. He judges others by what he himself might do with a gun. His overbearing temper rants on air he projects on others. On the other hand it was not he that causes such a problem, it is his microphone. If it were not for his microphone there would not be any controversy. Thus we should all demand FBI background checks before anyone uses a microphone. How could the founding fathers have envisioned microphones, TV, internet, etc. Demand that such weapons of mass information be controlled and be given a 10 day waiting period before purchase. You know, before anyone can exercise the 1st Amendment with shuch power.

  15. WoW!…Heated Controversy!… lol: Attention, “Wal-Mart Shoppers”, Big Christmas, Gun & Ammo Sale!… Going On, “NOW”!… in our” “Sporting – Goods” Department!… Much cheaper, to buy there, than the few Gun Shops, here in the Florida “Keys”!

  16. I’m all for mandatory safety with gun purchases. With every purchase, the buyer must be given a piece of paper listing Cooper’s rules and a directory of nearby places to obtain training. Unless of course they already have said card.

    Mandatory “safety” training tends to have unintended side effects. For example, bicycle helmet laws are pretty “common sense,” but they aren’t actually effective. Sure, wearing a helmet may increase survivability of a bike rider in a crash, but mandating helmet wearing for “public safety” actually costs society by increasing the number of accidents, in addition to ancillary effects such as increasing pollution and traffic congestion, decreased health benefits to people who commute via bicycle, and even economic impacts on the cycling industry.

    This whole “people need training” thing is also ridiculous if you consider that the ideal would be for every American to grow up with guns, and thus have an ingrained sense of gun safety. Anti-gun activists have probably greatly contributed to the number of gun accidents by promoting hoplophobia and discouraging gun ownership by the masses.

    • “…buyer must be given a piece of paper listing Cooper’s rules and a directory of nearby places to obtain training…”

      That’s “mandatory training” I could get behind.

  17. Another layer of the onion being removed that hurts at the county level.

    This whole freedom thing gets a little dicey when it starts hitting the good old boys and girls. I mean everybody knows the feds don’t know what they are doing that’s why we rely on our sheriff to decide who gets a present and who gets a sock full of coal (although in Georgia only a local judge can intervene but guess who puts the bug in his/her ear).

    Good to know Jim Crow is alive and well and has embraced equality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *