“You made it a law, so don’t be complaining about, well, my son got shot, my grandson got shot or my uncle got shot. You made it a law for them to carry a gun, so that’s going to be a problem.” – Marla Whiting in Some lawmakers say attorney general’s opinion on guns in parks means problems [at wreg.com]
“Sen. Harris said democrats, gun safety advocates and law enforcement will be meeting next month to try to figure out how they can get the law changed.”
In other words- we can’t have people being free, we need to control them, why, this freedom stuff is out of control!
Well, I would say tell your son, grandson, and uncle not to do any stupid stuff like attacking or robbing someone. The “victim” might be armed. Funny how that works.
Like so many morons before her she appears to working her hysteria up from a “guns are mandatory” position. In the article she mentions all the “young people” and “alcohol” and paint a picture of each and every numbnut carrying and of course letting the lead fly after a foot is stepped on.
So everyone is a hostile lunatic and they’re all carrying. That’s what she’s picturing.
Seems like a key difference between the anti’s and myself is I don’t wake each and everyday assuming the worst of the people around me.
Nope. Prepared for it maybe, but that’s something different.
Remember being prepared is viewed as being a paranoid vigilante by the anti gun crowd
It’s that projection thing again: they are paranoid about anyone other than the “right people” having a gun, and they project their paranoia onto everyone else.
@Another Robert: They only want government employees armed, THEN they whine about the growing police state. It never freaking ends with these idiots.
When your son got shot, your grandson got shot or your uncle got shot they aren’t living right or she is one unlucky person. I would bet they were running with a bad crowd.
It would seem that Ms. Whiting needs to concern herself more with knife control in her own household:
http://www.wlox.com/story/21829889/10-year-old-accused-of-stabbing-mother
Mining for gold and Chip hits a big vein!
Full disclosure: I misread her quote originally, and thought she was saying that her son, grandson, and uncle had been shot. So, I was trying to use my Google Fu to find out what happened to her family members. I found an obit that listed family members, but it didn’t include son, grandson, and uncle – at least, not that I could tie to Memphis. That was when I realized that her quote was hypothetical. But in the process of searching, I found the little gem that I linked above.
As hypothetical as her quote is there are people who could make that claim followed by “just as they were turning their lives around.”
Guns are uniformly distributed throughout the population but murder by all means is concentrated in particular demographics. Guns are not the problem.
Government maintains the poor, drives businesses out of a region, poor resort to crime, robbery & murder erupts…government can’t fix it so they work to make anti gun laws.
Not hard to comprehend most elected representives do not understand economics nor people.
“Not hard to comprehend most elected representives do not understand economics nor people”
Is that sarcasm? I would say they understand how to manipulate economics and people better than most, because they get reelected after proving they are of no moral character.
Government only maintains themselves, and their closest cronies. Being poor doesn’t make one a murderer or robber. Nobody, as in absolutely nobody, aside from insiders and others receiving specifically asymmetric treatment, benefits from the Government. If Atta and McVeigh somehow got resurrected and managed to wipe every single one of them off the planet in one fell swoop….. again, only a tight gaggle of “more equals” would experience any net suffering whatsoever. The rest would just adapt to living without a bloody boat anchor chained to their ankles.
The whole assumption stack underpinning the “class warfare” mantra (rich diss on poor, so poor needs government to protect them), is nothing but a compete hoax of a charade. Nobody needs government. It’s not rich vs poor. It’s government vs the people. Always has been, always will be. Until people wake the heck up and realize Somalia is infinitely better governed by now, than America has been at any time in the past 150-200 years.
In Chicago they have effectively banned guns from the streets, at least for the law abiding. Of course the criminals don’t care and the violence in “Chiraq” continues to make headlines. I guess the antis will have to live with that.
” I guess the antis will have to live with that.”
No friend, WE will have to live as peripheral victims of violence perpetrated by savages, because the anti’s use them as shoring up their investment in state control, through fiat legislation.
The antis that count do have guns. Carried by others. Re Bloomberg. The rest of them just do as told/indoctrinated to. if they were capable of thought more independent than that, they wouldn’t be antis.
“my son got shot, my grandson got shot or my uncle got shot.” She isn’t even sure if it was her grandson or her uncle who got shot ? Then she says ” You made it a law for them to carry a gun, so that’s going to be a problem”. Nobody made a law that says they HAVE to carry a gun. It is an option afforded by the law but not mandatory. So, in both these cases, Marla is uninformed, not too smart or spreading propaganda. Possibly all 3 and doing a poor job to boot. And the chances are that if several people in her family got shot it was probably because they were robbing people, dealing drugs, in gangs or some other illegal activity. Might be that they got shot because they were doing something illegal and a potential victim or another gang member shot them. The solution in those cases is to go get a legitimate job. If they were shot and not involved in illegal activities then they are way too stupid to own and use firearms. This lady is a very poor spokesperson for the anti-gun crowd. Hopefully the average person that heard her will realize that.
She was speaking hypothetically, though it took me a couple re-readings to realize it.
Do the operators of this concert have a point? There is going to be drinking going on here; and, people carrying concealed. An enormous crowd where police might have difficulty determining who might be intoxicated.
Sounds like a compelling argument for OC; doesn’t it?
There is thesis that OC is THE right to bear arms; CC is not protected and so it can be regulated. Prescinding for the moment with the arguments that can be made against this thesis, should’t we really examine the traditional arguments for OC and the “social utility” of OC in contemporary society?
If the barer/carrier is OCing then everyone around him has the opportunity to judge the potential for disorderly conduct. A sleepy drunk is one thing; an outraged young man with a gun is a different matter – just a couple of obvious hypothetical illustrations.
If OC is “THE” right protected under the 2A then aren’t the State laws (TX about to be superseded, FL, SC and perhaps others remaining) flatly unconstitutional?
If OC provides proprietors of businesses and the police a better basis upon which to judge the risk to public order, isn’t there a social utility argument in favor of OC?
If there is both a Constitutional and a public safety argument in favor of OC then it seems entirely incongruous for police to treat OCiers with great prejudice while naively ignoring CCiers. What are our local (municipal and State) governments attempting to accomplish by harassing, detaining and arresting OCiers? What rational thesis might be advanced to explain such harassment? Could it be an attempt at suppression of freedom of expression? If so, wouldn’t it be a violation of the 1A?
The argument that OC may “disturb the peace” is pretty thin; particularly on legal grounds when State law does not prohibit the practice. Yet, for the sake of argument, let’s conceded the charge: to some degree, OC may disturb the peace-of-mind of some members of the public. And so does some free-speech or assembly or pamphleteering disturb the peace-of-mind of some members of the public. Is OCing somehow different than speech/assembly/pamphleteering?
Clearly, the act of carrying a gun in public is one-in-the-same whether OC or CC. The actual danger to public order is not different in one case vs. the other. The distinction between the two is a matter of expression. OC is a form of expression that is open and forthright; CC is secret. Which is worthy of protection under the 1A and 2A?
In my weighing of values, normalization of guns in polite society is extremely high. Once we have a couple of generations of voters inoculated to guns-in-public the issue of gun-control must necessarily fade into background noise. So long as voters maintain the illusion that there are no guns in public they are ripe for the gun-grabbers’ sound-bites.
If this normalization value rationale is valid then we ought to articulate the arguments that favor OC to:
– the public;
– the constabulary; and,
– legislators
When TEOTWAWKI happens she be the first person expecting the government too help her, not realizing that she is on her own! Government will be too busy ripping people off too be much help!
personally I don’t give a Shit about her mental state or problems with her dead relatives, being so mind warped she wants too make everyone around her listen too her because she is an Authority on what? this is a lot like some type of religious cult this Anti-Gun thing, do as I say or I going too whack you with my Cross! being a Cult they should all be stepped on!
Because nobody ever gets shot in a “Gun-Free Zone”!
“Blood in the Streets” (or parks) is a classic anti 2nd ammendment theme. But, she could have said anything eg; “ack, ack, pfft…” and coughed up a furball. The nonsensical drivel these anti-gun bigots have been spouting for the past four decades is just propaganda.
Always a great idea to wind up people who walk the edge of following law. It’s like telling a little kid not to climb the ladder and jump off. After working in mental health one of the most elementary rules is not to feed into delusional thought patterns which typically exacerbate inappropriate behaviors.
Over and over the anti’s mislead with their rhetoric in attempts to suggest law is created for criminals. Like speed limits, laws are guides to keep otherwise honest people from making poor choices. I never noticed a fleeing bank robber slow down during a chase.
Well, why’d they go and make it legal to shoot sons, grandsons and uncles in the park? Am I missing something? Because the idea that someone can do something bad regardless of what the law says doesn’t seem to have factored into Ms. Whiting’s logic at all.
I think the shooting is mandatory. Says so right on the ticket.