Quote of the Day: Where the Rubber Meets the Road Edition

alton-nolen-oklahoma-jihadist

“As such attacks take place, previously indifferent unarmed Americans will wish to arm themselves, only to find government imposed obstacles in their way.” – Jonathan F. Keiler, Oklahoma Terror and Gun Control [via americanthinker.com] [h/t SS]

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    I understand that during the Rodney King riots folks showed up at the gun stores looking to buy a gun and discovered CA’s 10 day waiting period.

    Waiting til after the apocalypse has started to tool up is truly poor planning.

    1. avatar Mediocrates says:

      so true…

    2. avatar That Guy says:

      Yep, the radio shows were full of people furious that they couldn’t get the means to defend themselves, because of a law that some of them even admitted voting for.

      1. avatar Omer Baker says:

        Sure they supported the law and perhaps even voted for it,but that law was supposed to be for other people, not them.

        1. avatar Rokurota says:

          Ouch. The truth! It hurts!

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          This makes this list of “most accurate statements” on this site for today. Top three, at least.

        3. avatar Julio says:

          And yet, nothing ever changed. All of that outrage never materialized into an effort to reverse or repeal the requirement for waiting 10 days. Until the next “crisis” occurs and…the same result. Truly matches with that well-known idiom on the definition of insanity–behaving the same way (or executing the same action) repeatedly while expecting a different result each time.

    3. avatar Rokurota says:

      Agreed. But let’s not laugh at the unprepared while making it impossible for them to gear up. Take down any and all barriers to public safety and access to goods. Then laugh at them.

    4. avatar Bear The Grizzly says:

      Although I never voted for any waiting periods, in my early days I never seen it as a big deal. Until the day I bought a handgun 3 hours away and had to make the trip back to pick it up after a few days. I think people will fully support ludicrous things if it doesn’t affect them.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Or they hear the quick description from the promoters and think, “oh, that’s a good idea.” Like the people supporting WA I-594. Most of them hear the constant Bloomberg bought barrage that it will keep criminals from getting guns, and don’t bother to ask “how?”

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Then the worst happens, and they can’t buy a gun in a reasonable time, and it’s against the law for a friend to loan them one.

          Oops…

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Well, of course, they will. We all have the strength to endure the misfortunes of others.

    5. avatar Morgan Y. says:

      I picture this as a criminal asking the hangman for a demonstration and a nice grave plot to be dug.

    6. avatar Kyle says:

      Charleton Heston relayed a story about this happening to a friend of his at the time. The guy calls him up, asking if he can borrow a gun. Heston asks why, and the guy says, “Well I went and tried to buy a gun today, and there’s a waiting period!”

      I’ve heard there are a lot of closet gun owners in California in the liberal areas.

  2. avatar Mediocrates says:

    It won’t be long before the American people pay the price in a spectacular way for the Federal government’s long standing failure to guard the border.

    1. avatar Bob92 says:

      Being someone who lives in a border state with first hand experience, you are so right. The fed cannot and will not stop disorganized criminal elements that commit most of the crime in this state from crossing the border. I have no illusion they will stop an organized terrorist element.

    2. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Refusing to guard the border pales in comparison to deliberate efforts to make it more difficult for us to protect ourselves regardless from whence the threat originates.

  3. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    That says it all doesn’t it?

  4. avatar Tom says:

    I may have missed it, but have they actually figured out he went there and started stabbing people because they wouldn’t convert or was he screwed up some other way?

    I mean ‘beheading’ is on the mind a lot because of ISIS, but you can ‘swing a knife hard’ and ‘almost behead’ someone.

    I’m not trying to downplay it either, I just would like if we’re going to go ‘Muslims are out to kill you in small town OK’ i’d like it to be because they did, not because some unbalanced dude happened to say something about Allah one day and then came back and started stabbing at co-workers in a typical workplace violence bs.

    either way, still why you should consider and being armed.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      Fox News indicated he blamed one of the women for reporting his conversion efforts.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      Nobody knows. The FBI is investigating but that does not say much because the most transparent administration in history is anything but transparent.

      The prosecutors are going for the death penalty, we will have to wait to see what comes out in court. If the state is going for the death penalty, his lawyers will go for batshit crazy. The prosecutor will try to prove otherwise which is when some info will come up.

      I doubt we have an ISIS crises, but certainly will have plenty of posers who get their jollies scaring people.

    3. avatar surlycmd says:

      I think this guy got butthurt because of his suspension and went back for some revenge. Not because of some grand delusion that he is the Oklahoma Chapter President of ISIS. Whatever this idiots motivation, citizens should have the best means to defend themselves available on the market. That would be a variety of firearms.

      I believe the anti-gun agitators will state the incident would have been worse if had used a gun. Gun laws prevented him from obtaining one and the citizen who shot him was an off duty LEO. The usual misleading storyline.

      1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

        100% agree with your last part. I remember seeing an article a few months ago about how easy it was to become a volunteer sheriff and then be able sidestep a lot of laws regarding concealed carry. The article was full of typical fear mongering accusing volunteers as being wannabe cops and loose cannons subject to no formal accountability and all the typical “the sky is falling! your neighbors might be armed and dangerous!!!” bullshit. Then one of these volunteers shoots a wannabe jihadist and they very quickly change their tune.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I think you’re reading the story wrong. An off-duty reserve officer (a civilian) went to his car and got gov’t issued RO vest on (so that the arriving cops would not kill HIM) and then used the only weapon (gov’t issued or gov’t sanctioned purchased firearm) as they were banned from the worksite by the “targets” that worked there. I appreciate the RO’s service, and his end to this Islamic jihadist wannabe’s (by his own writing) assumed death-by-cop-wish. But the likely reason it was not ended by someone else, is due to other citizens being law-abiding and overly deferent to its assumed protections.

          The message should be “If you bend-over to take-it, they will come”. September 11, 2001 could have happened on any other flight, on any other day, the government had demanded that the initial victims put themselves at a disarmed advantage, with the false promise that they had security in-hand.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Plus, you have to force yourself to take a step-back to look at it. The employer promised security with a gun-free zone, the NSA promised they were tracking people like this (and are “on-top-of-it” meanwhile they are probably just sifting through your cell-phone pics during their paid tantric stragubation sessions).

          No one can protect you at the individual level and it is not just wrong for “cops/police/fire/Ambulance/government/intelligence agencies/military” to say so, it is WRONGFUL, and this is one of the exhibitions of its failures.

    4. avatar Gregolas says:

      Was he killing people because he was crazy or Islamic?
      YES.

    5. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Short of his having published a book titled “Serving Allah and Beheading Infidels: This Sort of Thing IS My Bag, BABY!”, I think you already have as much information as you need, and as much as you’re likely to to get, to draw the appropriate conclusions about this murderer’s motivations and allegiences.

  5. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Yep that’s usually the way it works unfortunately. Those of us with the foresight to realize these risks and prepare in advance get labeled as “paranoid” or “extremists” etc.

    1. avatar Bear The Grizzly says:

      This is spot on. I can’t tell you how much crap I’ve taken from family, friends, and coworkers over being prepared. I don’t even have a bunker or crap like that. I keep extra food and water in case of hurricanes and I still get called paranoid. People have gotten so dependent on everyone else to take care of them.

      1. avatar Perplexed Pistolero says:

        I get that from people who wonder why the heck I have a pocket knife and a Leatherman on a daily basis. Lasts about as long as it takes for them to need either one. Besides, rather than labels, preparedness gets me stickers, I much prefer those.

  6. avatar Anon in CT says:

    I will admit that with all the news lately, yesterday I ordered a half case each of 9mm and .45 JHP. I’m pretty good in the FMJ department, but realized I could stand to gave more true self-defense rounds on hand.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      FMJ has killed millions. In a jihad the Islamic hoards won’t ask that you use hollowpoints to get those virgins 🙂

  7. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    “previously indifferent unarmed Americans will wish to arm themselves”

    And a certain percentage will remain indifferent.

    This subset will continue to make excuses for others’ behavior (that they have no control over) and ignore how such behavior directly (and violently) impacts their own lives. Many will pass this thinking along to their children. This group includes both men and women.

    This subset could easily be ignored to live their lives in blissful ignorance except for one thing. Then tend to be screaming and writing about their nonsense in Op-Eds, blogs and salon/huffpo articles. A few of them are highly visible in the media, and few have political jobs of significant power.

    They tend to scream loudest for “more laws” and more protection from the external when reality slams into their ignorance. It is impossible for them to control the behavior of others, but that’s the only solution they know to seek. So, they seek more control, never turning their focus inward and asking, “Since it is my only my own behavior I can control, what can *I* do?”

    1. avatar Bob92 says:

      You forgot to mention that when their life is on the line, they will expect one us to come to their rescue, and then after we save them, they will criticize us for it, maybe even sue us because the gun we used to stop the threat went bang and hurt their ears.

      1. avatar Charles says:

        Someone went on a shooting rampage in New York this week hittingna kid, a grandad and a teacher. A relative of one of the victims chased him down and hit him with a car as he was running away. Non critical injuries, but the cops arrested the driver and charged him with two felonies.

        Charles

        1. avatar Tony F. says:

          Story link?
          Not heard of this and don’t see it in searches.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “It is impossible for them [gun grabbers] to control the behavior of others, but that’s the only solution they [gun grabbers] know to seek.”

      You know, I have had this basic thought before but never quite so succinctly. This has to be our main focus with gun grabbers. Don’t waste time on statistics or studies. Simply impress upon the gun grabber that it is impossible to control the behavior of others. Drive that point home until they admit it. Then ask them what THEY plan to do to protect themselves since they cannot control the behavior of others.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Good points. We also shouldn’t forget that disempowered people often fear and loathe people who are empowered. One of the curious things about co-dependence theory is that enablers may hate their circumstances but refuse to change because they see it as their proper place. Gun controllers are a lot like this. Although they feel they are not safe, they also feel powerless to make themselves safe. When they see empowered people defending themselves, it further increases their anxiety and self-loathing by showing how powerless they are when others are not. By demanding more gun control laws, disempowered people want to make us like them.

    4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      When I tell the story of “The Three Little Pigs”, when I reach the point where the less prepared pigs coming begging for entry into the brick house, rather than just finish the story as written, I open it up to discussion as to what the third pig should decide.

  8. avatar Jimbo says:

    This post leads with a story in which a Man successfully thwarts any further attacks through legal use of a firearm and then mentions government Imposed obstacles. In some states sure, but not the state in which this happened. Seems like your reaching for something here by using this story to make this point

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Some points for you to consider before making the criticism you are making:

      (1) Where did this particular good guy with a gun get his gun or allowed (by the ‘press’) to carry at all?

      (2) Why is he ‘given a pass’ on carrying said firearm to work?

      (3) Are those same ‘freedoms’ enjoyed by all of us, or are there obstacles SOME people face that others don’t?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “(1) Where did this particular good guy with a gun get his gun or allowed (by the ‘press’) to carry at all?”

        I believe the rifle was his or the company’s property. Even if it was a Sheriff Dept. weapon, it makes no difference in this case.

        “(2) Why is he ‘given a pass’ on carrying said firearm to work?”

        Well, the name of the company is Vaughan Foods

        His name is Mark Vaughan, and he is the his company’s CEO.

        It’s pretty much standard in the USA that the owner of a business needs no one’s “pass” to be armed at their place of business.

        “(3) Are those same ‘freedoms’ enjoyed by all of us, or are there obstacles SOME people face that others don’t?”

        Uh, yeah. Open a business and carry a gun if you like.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Wow…did you ever completely miss the point.

          I was not mentioning what HE did or WHY he did it, etc.

          I was focusing attention on the REPORTING of the incident, which is why Farago mentioning the “obstacles” in his article is relevant. That is, the media don’t care one whit about any of that you mentioned…they only care that he was LEO affiliated.

    2. avatar Gregolas says:

      No Jimbo. The POG want to point to any time that bad guys are stopped by legally armed citizens AND any time a citizen is harmed by a criminal (regardless of his motivation) because their state/federal laws left them defenseless. It shows the contrast between the benefits of freedom and the detrimental irrationality of state control.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      I believe that the business worksite was a weapons-free zone.

      1. avatar Jimbo says:

        If that were the case that is not a government imposed obstacle but one of the property owner

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “As such attacks take place, previously indifferent unarmed Americans will wish to arm themselves …”

    I already spoke with one such person. He has never owned a firearm in his entire life as far as I know. Now he is seriously considering acquiring a concealed carry license and tooling-up — he wants to be prepared in case another brazen attack occurs to him or someone near him.

  10. avatar pod says:

    I got a concealed carry license for two reasons:

    • So I could carry concealed and defend myself in 99 percent of the places I may find myself.

    • As an “express pass” for firearms purchasing. Here in Florida, you can walk out of your LGS with your shiny new acquisition the same day if you have your CWFL. Otherwise, it’s 3-5 business days (county sets the waiting period) until you can go home with your purchase.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    It will be good for gun rights if the previously indifferent choose to tool up and then discover that the G makes it difficult. It should move the needle in our favor.

    It will be good for gun owners if some of the indifferent stay that way. Predators will always be predators, but predators prefer soft targets. Soft targets will include the indifferent and anti-gun wingnuts who choose to remain unarmed. Let them be victims. Let them be bait. Better them than us.

  12. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Reminds me of the story about two guys running from a bear. One just has to outrun the other guy, not the bear!

    After reading the comments, I wonder how the anti-gun crowd is causing all these problems? I think it is apathy on the thinking person’s part and feel that it will be too late for them to wake up before SHTF.

    They are creating the situation and between allowing Ebola on our shores and gun confiscation, there will not be much choice in the matter. Obama may have already succeeded in reducing this country to third world status. So it is only a matter of time before someone comes over and takes it from us.

    The thing is he is betting the farm on his ineffective policies. I do not want to forgive him, I want him and others like him out of our politics!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email