Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Boones Mill

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    It's about politics, not gun rights

    Friday, May 16, 2008

    Just when we were optimistic that Boones Mill would see some peace and quiet after a bitter election, people carrying firearms and a shouting match highlighted the town council meeting Tuesday night.

    A group called the Virginia Citizens Defense League sent about 40 members to the Boones Mill Town Council meeting in an apparent protest over a sign that is posted at town hall. The sign requests that no firearms be brought into the building.

    Arguments also erupted over the residency of Boones Mill Mayor Ben Flora.

    Both the sign and residency question were issues during the campaign, and it seems likely the losers of the election will not let the issues die.

    That's sad, not only for the people in Boones Mill, but for the county as well.

    At one time, the sign prohibited firearms from being carried into town hall, but the change to a simple request seems appropriate. State law prohibits a town or city from banning guns in most public buildings, including a town hall, so residents do have a right to carry legal firearms into a public meeting.

    The common sense question here is, "Why would anyone want to do so?"

    Speakers from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a grassroots organization based in Northern Virginia, said the sign was discriminatory and prejudicial against gun owners, thereby threatening their Second Amendment rights.

    If anything, using such a show of force to try to prove a nebulous point is more of a threat to Second Amendment rights. Who wants to attend a town council meeting with people toting guns for no apparent reason? That's a good way to make residents question the need to give people that right in the first place.

    We are firm supporters of gun rights, but we certainly don't see the point of carrying firearms to a town council meeting. The move by the Virginia Citizens Defense League was ill-advised, and nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to political sour grapes. In other words, members of the league, who apparently came here from other areas in the state, may have been well-intentioned, but they ended up involved in a political squabble they may have known nothing about.

    Council member Peggy Steele probably spoke for most residents when she said, "That (carrying a gun at the meeting) worries me, especially if it is someone who has a temper."

    And tempers did flare, especially about the residency issue, which is being looked into by the Franklin County Commonwealth's Attorney.

    We urge those who lost the election to let the commonwealth's attorney look at the issue and make a determination. Until that is done, anything said about the mayor's residency is political rhetoric at its worst.

    Cooler heads need to prevail here. Otherwise, it's going to be very difficult for council to operate effectively. And we certainly don't want to see a situation where sheriff's deputies are needed at every meeting.

    Write to us:
    fnpcharles@franklinnews-post.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    Does that writer have a permit for his printing press? A person with a temper and a printing press could print something they might regret later. And he should be fingerprinted and undergo a background check, after all, his printing press must be concealed somewhere! <snark off/>



    Maybe some day he will get it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    Funny you should ask who gives you your rights.

    I was watching a news clip about 'legalizing' drugs.

    The government does not legalize anything. They either pass a law against it, or leave it alone.

    The idea of 'legalizing' anything frightens me, it assumes everything is unlawful unless .gov says it's OK.

    Hardly the underpinnings of a free society.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Yep...in the original article it says


    That's a good way to make residents question the need to give people that right in the first place.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Just need to send the authora copy of Ullman vs US:

    Excerpt:

    As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion. It is appropriate to read the conviction expressed in a memorable address by Senator Albert J. Beveridge to the American Bar Association in 1920, a time when there was also manifested impatience with some of the restrictions of the Constitution in the presumed interest of security. His appeal was to the Constitution -- to the whole Constitution, not to a mutilating selection of those parts only which for the moment find favor. [n3] To view a particular To view a particular [p429] provision of the Bill of Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution.

    The footnote [n3]:

    If liberty is worth keeping and free representative government worth saving, we must stand for all American fundamentals -- not some, but all. All are woven into the great fabric of our national wellbeing. We cannot hold fast to some only, and abandon others that, for the moment, we find inconvenient. If one American fundamental is prostrated, others in the end will surely fall. The success or failure of the American theory of society and government depends upon our fidelity to every one of those interdependent parts of that immortal charter of orderly freedom, the Constitution of the United States.

    http://tinyurl.com/3fe8ma

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    I
    The common sense question here is, "Why would anyone want to do so?"

    people toting guns for no apparent reason?

    we certainly don't see the point of carrying firearms to a town council meeting.
    Aside from the egregiously stupid comment about people being "given" their rights, there are also the depressingly familiar questions about why anyone would "need" a gun here, there or anywhere.

    Perhaps we need to develop some "canned" rebuttals to these predictable statements from the antis and the merely misinformed. ( I might work on a statement about the "need" issue and post something later on for comments/suggestions. ) It could be a simple handout presented to reporters, police, politicians, demonstrators, and others who are likely to vomit forth the same tedious remarks in public forums. It could be a polite way of saying "Don't even waste your breath or our time using the following lame, worn out arguments".

    Antis are predictable if nothing else. How many times in the last 20 years did we hear them take their roadshows from state to state anytime a CCW law was being debated? How many times did we hear them regurgitate the same dire warnings about "returns to the Wild West, gunfights like the OK corral, blood running in the streets" etc, etc.? Enough!



  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Newsweek caused people to die and likely millions of dollars in property damage by printing the rumor of a Koran being flushed at Gitmo as news. This story was proven demostrably false, but not until it was used as a basis for mass riots and some murders around the world.

    So yes, irresponsible use of the 1st Amendment can kill. Irresponsible use of the 2A can kill. Irresponsible use of a mop and a water bucket at the entrance of a store can kill or seriously injure. So do we test, train and license people to report, carry or mop?

    Things are messed up. We have a segment of our population living by a "no snitch" code thereby allowing hardened criminals to be emboldened and continue to prey on the community. On the other side we have a "snitch about anything that makes you remotely uncomfortable" code, with people just making up crap to get the cops to respond against law abiding citizens living their lives without bothering anyone else.

    "That's a good way to make residents question the need to give people that right in the first place." Oh and *******, neither you nor anyone else GAVE me that right. It is a natural right from the moment of birth, much like your right to have your head firmly up your buttocks.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP "That's a good way to make residents question the need to give people that right in the first place." Oh and *******, neither you nor anyone else GAVE me that right. It is a natural right from the moment of birth, much like your right to have your head firmly up your buttocks.
    Sometimes I'm in the mood to say, "Just try and takemy right away, and you'll find out whether it was something you could give or take."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    FTA: 'toting guns'
    Inever 'tote'. I 'pack', biatch.
    FTA: 'political rhetoric at its worst.'
    Standard liberal phrase for issues they do not want to explain.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    I was at that Town Council meeting. let me comment.
    It's about politics, not gun rights

    Friday, May 16, 2008

    Just when we were optimistic that Boones Mill would see some peace and quiet after a bitter election, people carrying firearms and a shouting match highlighted the town council meeting Tuesday night.
    There was a shouting match - but it was not about the sign or about the guns that were present. Not knowing everything about the issue they were shouting about, I can only surmise it was a combination of "sore loser" and "bad blood" that has gone on for several years.

    A group called the Virginia Citizens Defense League sent about 40 members to the Boones Mill Town Council meeting in an apparent protest over a sign that is posted at town hall. The sign requests that no firearms be brought into the building.
    As you might imagine, VCDL could not "send" anybody anywhere. However, there were about 40 folks who were either 1) town residents who oppoosed the sign and its predecessors, 2) folks from the local (Roanoke & evirons) area who were VCDL members, and 3) VCDL members from as far to the East as Virginia Beach and to the West as Bristol, Va.

    Arguments also erupted over the residency of Boones Mill Mayor Ben Flora.

    Both the sign and residency question were issues during the campaign, and it seems likely the losers of the election will not let the issues die.

    That's sad, not only for the people in Boones Mill, but for the county as well.

    At one time, the sign prohibited firearms from being carried into town hall, but the change to a simple request seems appropriate. State law prohibits a town or city from banning guns in most public buildings, including a town hall, so residents do have a right to carry legal firearms into a public meeting.
    And both state law on preemption and state/federal laws on the violation of civil rights under color of law make the "simple request" by the Town Council/Chief of Police just as illegal as the previous signs which were postings of illegally enacted Town ordinances.
    The common sense question here is, "Why would anyone want to do so?"
    Among other things that I learned while exploring the Boones Mill area during the afternoon before the Town Council meeting were: 1) there have been some serious assaults at the local high school - involving town and county residents, 2) crimes against persons are "spilling over" from Roanoke (city & county) into Boones Mill and Franklin County, 3) of the more than 30 people that I interacted with in and around Boones Mill prior to the meeting, not one had a negative reaction to my Open Carrying - and four (4) folks sought me out to make positive and supporting comments to me about OC-ing.
    All this is in addition to the standard "Sheesh! Do I really have to go over this again with another person?"

    Speakers from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a grassroots organization based in Northern Virginia, said the sign was discriminatory and prejudicial against gun owners, thereby threatening their Second Amendment rights.
    WRONG!! That was the thrust of my comments to the Town Council. I never identified myself as being a member of VCDL oraffiliated with VCDL while attending the meeting. That was done on purpose, as hasd I identified myself as a VCDL member it would have weakened my accusations of prejusice and civil rights violations.

    If anything, using such a show of force to try to prove a nebulous point is more of a threat to Second Amendment rights. Who wants to attend a town council meeting with people toting guns for no apparent reason? That's a good way to make residents question the need to give people that right in the first place.
    Oh my aching head! Where to start? I guess the reporter was upset because all of the guns that were present kept going off all by themselves and there were gallons on blood on the floor of the Town Hall by the time we all left - NOT!
    And as for the "question the need to give people that right" statement -- that is echoing the comments of one of only two (2) town residents at the meeting who spoke in favor of the sign. (The other was a biddy old woman who kept turning around to tell Philip and me how intimidated she felt with all the guns present.)
    I spoke up immediately after the town resident made his statement, informing him that just as the Declaration of Indedendence states, rights come from my Creator and are unalienable - meaning that NO man can take them away. That drew the only applause during citizen comment time - thank you, thank you, autographs will be available in the lobby.

    We are firm supporters of gun rights, but we certainly don't see the point of carrying firearms to a town council meeting. The move by the Virginia Citizens Defense League was ill-advised, and nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to political sour grapes. In other words, members of the league, who apparently came here from other areas in the state, may have been well-intentioned, but they ended up involved in a political squabble they may have known nothing about.
    Another "I suport the Scond Amendment, but only so long as nobody can have a gun except the cops" supporter.
    However, as was made clear by VCDL members who spoke as VCDL members, this was in fact a knee-jerk reaction to an attempt to illegally infringe on the rights of ALL the citizens of the Commonwealth. And the Town Council of Boones Mill was the one hitting our knee with that itty-bitty little hammer of "my feelings are more important than your rights or complying with the law".
    It was made very clear that VCDL did not care one way or the other about local political or personal squabbles, but was focused entirely on attempting to educate Town Council on why the sign "requesting" that nobody bring guns to Town Council meetings was still not legit.

    Council member Peggy Steele probably spoke for most residents when she said, "That (carrying a gun at the meeting) worries me, especially if it is someone who has a temper."
    What better than a full-blown case of psychological projection? Perhaps (I'm giving 5:1 odds) Ms. Steele is worried about someone with a temper because she has a temper and cannot control it?
    I am not the slowest to anger, and I suffer from a near-fatal inability to abide stupidity, and yet I was able to control my behavior for over an hour while sitting there listening to drivel of this sort without shooting up the entire building. And nobody had to whisper in my ear things like "Breathe - remember to breathe." or remind me to remain socially appropriate. and for the record, I did not run out ofTown Hall and shootanybody or anything.

    And tempers did flare, especially about the residency issue, which is being looked into by the Franklin County Commonwealth's Attorney.
    Yes - the tempers of the Mayor especially! But nobody there to speak on the issue of the no-guns sign lost their temper.

    We urge those who lost the election to let the commonwealth's attorney look at the issue and make a determination. Until that is done, anything said about the mayor's residency is political rhetoric at its worst.

    Cooler heads need to prevail here. Otherwise, it's going to be very difficult for council to operate effectively. And we certainly don't want to see a situation where sheriff's deputies are needed at every meeting
    About half-way through the time when the no-guns sign was being discussed a Franklin County Deputy did drive up and park outside Town Hall. He never came inside. I talked with him when I came out of Town Hall, and asked him why he was there. He stated that he saw a large number of folks standing outside Town Hall and was curious about what was going on. He denied there had been a call for him to come and "stand by". So I guess the comment above is directed at the Mayor and the guy who lost the election, and has NOTHING TO DO WITH folks from VCDL or otherwise opposed to the no-guns sign.

    Write to us:
    fnpcharles@franklinnews-post.com
    Yes. Please write to them. Among other things you might write to them about is this example of mixing editorial opinion in with straight news reporting.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    I was at that Town Council meeting. let me comment.
    *SNIP*
    Yes. Please write to them. Among other things you might write to them about is this example of mixing editorial opinion in with straight news reporting.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    Thanks skidmark for the firsthand account of what went on

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    nova wrote:
    I
    The common sense question here is, "Why would anyone want to do so?"

    people toting guns for no apparent reason?

    we certainly don't see the point of carrying firearms to a town council meeting.
    Aside from the egregiously stupid comment about people being "given" their rights, there are also the depressingly familiar questions about why anyone would "need" a gun here, there or anywhere.
    I've wondered about the mindset that makes people question the "need" to have a gun in a particular place. I've decided that people who ask that question, see a gun as something to be locked in a safe, and only withdrawn for a specific need.

    They believe that someone carrying a gun to city hall must have thought to themself, "I'm going to city hall, so I better strap on a pistol!"

    The actual "common sense question" to those who carry is, "I'm already wearing a pistol, so why should I remove it just because I'm going to city hall?"

    It's a different mindset. I don't know if those who stubbornly refuse to "get it" will ever accept it.



  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    nova wrote:
    I
    The common sense question here is, "Why would anyone want to do so?"

    people toting guns for no apparent reason?

    we certainly don't see the point of carrying firearms to a town council meeting.
    Aside from the egregiously stupid comment about people being "given" their rights, there are also the depressingly familiar questions about why anyone would "need" a gun here, there or anywhere.

    Perhaps we need to develop some "canned" rebuttals to these predictable statements from the antis and the merely misinformed.
    I think that Alan Korwin has done the work of preparing the "canned responses" for us. I either bolded or used colored text to show the "canned" responses.


    http://gunlaws.com/DuquesneSpeech.htm




    Quote:



    EYEWITNESS REPORT
    Duquesne University 2008 Gun-Control Symposium
    James Brady a no-show, wife Sarah hospitalized

    Can a pro-rights perspective survive at an anti-rights rally?


    Review any of our products by category:
    Gun Laws • Self Defense and Safety • DVDs • Gun Right
    Gun Politics • Police Guides • Newest Products • Novels
    Founders Package • Complete alphabetical list



    by Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America

    (Links to University promo and news coverage at end)



    The National Symposium on Handgun Violence was held at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, on April 9, 2008. Ten of the leading gun-control advocates in the nation were scheduled for a coordinated review of “reasonable” limits on the right to keep and bear arms, led by Jim Brady himself, along with David Hemenway of Harvard and a host of others. News of the event and its surprise ending (covered at the end of this report) has not made national headlines.

    A courageous decision was made to provide “balance,” which meant the organizers eventually found me (thanks to a referral from Alan Gura, Dick Heller’s attorney in the D.C. gun-ban case). They got me last-minute non-stop tickets from Phoenix, a room (a very nice room I might add), and 15 minutes at the podium. Ten against one. Hah. I had them outnumbered.

    I’ve been studying persuasion skills for a long while now, and here was an acid test. Was it possible to address an audience like this and not get booed off stage? Could I manage civil discourse with the participants at the luncheon beforehand, maintain composure through the staging, and end up sociable at the afterglow dinner at a fine restaurant?

    It’s my belief that the words exist in the universe to convince anyone of anything true, regardless of their predispositions. The trick is in finding those words, in the moment, and delivering them in a way that works, with the proper aplomb. You may not always find the words, but the words are always there. Think of it this way. What would Jesus say. The words are there. Could I find enough of them?

    They scheduled me near the end, which was a good thing. I got to hear the keepers of the faith, the bearers of the sacred messages, tell 700 people and a gaggle of camera crews and reporters that -- guns are bad; crime is caused by guns; every gun-control scheme you’ve ever heard of is good; gun confiscations will solve the crime problem; we the people are too dangerous, irrational, unpredictable and incompetent to be allowed to bear arms; and that people on government payrolls (they didn’t frame it that way but it’s what they were saying) should have all these deadly dangerous malevolent guns. I’m putting this all more bluntly than they did, or than I ever would when wearing my hat of tasteful persuasive moderation.

    We were briefed at lunch beforehand on how to handle hecklers, if any. Everyone took turns genuflecting in the direction of civility, and calm affirmation of a desire to tactfully handle any outburst in the unlikely event we faced any. The antis might attract some guff, but it was pretty obvious, though unspoken, that it was me, in my nice navy blazer and sharp red tie, who might face some opprobrium. I disarmed their fears by saying I didn’t want to hear anyone cry out, “Don’t taze me bro,” and we all had a good laugh. When one of the black women asked why I love guns, I looked at her and asked sheepishly, “Are you stereotyping me dear?” We laughed some more.

    Metal detectors were installed at the entrance, a precaution we were told, because five athletes were shot on campus several years ago (none fatal thank God), which was a motivator for the conference in the first place. I’ve seen this before -- pro-rights gun conferences, walk right in. Anti-rights conferences, bristling with armed security and pat downs. What’s wrong with that picture?

    I counted at least 14 crisply uniformed campus police, bearing 9 millimeter semis with a pair of double-stack extra mags on their duty belts. We had some great conversations, though the other speakers seemed to avoid these people. I had them laughing about all the guns in this anti-gun conference. As more showed up I kept telling them that now I REALLY felt safe. We swapped gun talk, war stories, a few thanked me for being there. I knew I had at least a few people on my side -- the ones with the guns.

    When my turn came, I was pretty choked up. Tom Mauser, who came before me, had lost his 15-year-old son at Columbine. No matter where you stand on the RKBA issue, that is just hard to endure. I have a daughter in school. I worry for her every day. No amount of even fascist controls can stop a psycho bent on destruction.

    He had put on his son’s shoes for his speech, and took them off to show the crowd. He was walking in his murdered son’s shoes. I’m getting choked up just writing this. It was awful, compelling, deeply moving. The photographers crowded in to get that shot, and it’s the image that ran in all the papers the next day. He had used his dead son’s shoes effectively.

    I walked the steps to the lectern and thanked the university for being courageous and including me. It was gutsy of them to have a speaker on the other side of the fence at a symposium like this. And I told them it was really hard for me to do, in the face of the tragedy and mind-numbing statistics we had been hearing. It was the right place for me to start, the right words to use, all deeply heartfelt. The audience quietly absorbed my opening remarks.

    The university asked me here, I told them, so you could have some measure of balance, so you could see that this conference is only half the equation. I’m here, and I held up the sign I had used at the Supreme Court case a few weeks ago, to make sure you keep in mind that Guns Save Lives too. Guns Stop Crime (and another matching sign). Guns Protect You. Look how many guns there are in this room. You know why they’re there -- because guns have a purpose, a social utility that’s important and should not be overlooked.

    Their emotions had been played upon all afternoon, so I continued the trend. I told of a woman awakened to find a knife-wielding, ski-masked intruder in her home, and how she had to shoot him while crouched behind her bed, after having called 911. She had to keep firing until the big guy finally collapsed. The police arrived only nine minutes later. You could hear a pin drop.

    Would you deny this woman her right to live, by taking her gun away? Isn’t the message, “If it saves one life...”? Do you have the moral authority, or a sense of self righteousness that says she must die because you think guns are bad? I pressed on.

    Mary Ann Watkins got an award here in Arizona at our tenth anniversary CCW banquet. We passed our discreet-carry law against a backdrop of hysterical clamor about blood in the streets, shootouts at traffic lights, and dead bad waiters. Ten years had proven that was nonsense, a concoction of irrationally scared uneducated minds and a compliant media. None of it happened (and no news corrections were printed).

    Mary Ann had stopped at a lonely desert rest stop on the way to Phoenix from Yuma. A burly trucker followed her into the ladies’ room. Maybe he just wanted to borrow her lipstick? (It didn’t get the laugh I thought it would). When she pointed her sidearm at him he left, muttering, “Bitches with guns, bitches with guns.” Did she save her life, or prevent a rape? We don’t know, we can never know. But that’s how most of these encounters take place, the gun isn’t even fired. Would you condemn this slight-of-build history teacher to death because you have no stomach for the other side of the equation?

    The audience was mine. I had achieved my primary goal. Show a roomful of fearful anti-rights activists that guns are good sometimes, and not get yelled at for it. Bring reason and insight to a crowd, steeped in ignorance and fear, that sorely needed it. I had found the words, and the demeanor, and made the most of it. The university had done good finding me.

    While I was on a roll, I mentioned something about me that’s true, that most people don’t realize. I’m actually a utopian pacifist. I look forward to and hope for a world with no weapons of any kind, in an era of enduring peace, prosperity, abundance and harmony. You should too, it would be a good thing. Until then I say disarm everyone -- bad guys first. And I held out my Disarm Criminals First sign.

    We can’t get to that world because of what I call the Four Horseman of Human Havoc -- Angry, Hungry, Stupid and Wicked. Oh, we might be able to solve Hungry someday, but the other three? And that’s the rub. Until there is a fundamental change in human nature, the good guys need the guns to protect themselves from the bad guys. That’s why you have all those armed people in the room, right? No one disagreed. If guns suddenly disappeared, the good guys would have to invent them all over again. That’s because Guns Protect You.

    It’s easy, I told them, to imagine a gun-free world. It’s very easy. Guns are a relatively new invention -- just go back in time a little ways. What do you get? Genghis Kahn, Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar, and my favorite, Xena the Warrior Princess (again, no laughs). They wiped out entire towns, raped plundered and pillaged, all without guns. When they came to town, that’s when you really needed a gun -- and not just a six shooter.

    Which leads to a counterintuitive truth. We’re safer now than we were then when there were no guns. The ability to effectively project force keeps us safer. You couldn’t ride the highways back then, now you can. For all the crime you hear about, things aren’t all that bad.

    Those of you who just want guns to go away, you don’t want to take guns away from the police do you? Heads shake no. Of course you want the police armed... and that’s a very pro gun position. You instinctively understand the value of guns. You just want someone else to hold it for you. But Jeff Snyder, in his landmark book Nation of Cowards, suggests it is unethical, immoral and politically corrupt to entrust your right to and precious gift of life to someone else.

    And this brings us to one of the really ugly truths about the “gun problem” that no one wants to look at. If you really want to cut down on the crime and “gun deaths” as they like to call it, you’ve got to start recognizing that there is a demographic component to this problem. [] There are social, economic and geographic aspects to the issue. But no one wants to confront that. Well if you keep sweeping it under the rug, you can kiss your chances of really making headway goodbye. And as you encroach on the human rights of innocent people instead of the root problems, you can expect fierce resistance to your plans, and that resistance is justified.

    Also, if you want to cut the “gun deaths” in half, recognize that many if not most are actually “war deaths,” killings in the war on some drugs. The government wages this war, encouraging armed camps, and they shoot at each other and themselves. Declare an armistice and stop the killing. You’ll reach your goal faster than fighting the civil rights lobby that protects the Second Amendment.

    Ask a politician when we can declare victory and stop, or just declare defeat and stop, and you’ll learn it’s a perpetual war, like Orwell warned us about. The analogy to alcohol prohibition couldn’t be clearer. While the ban is on, the killings continue. Stop the war, the killings go away, even though all the problems caused by the vegetable products continue.

    The speakers railed about the availability of guns. But guns are less available now than they used to be. Before 1968, anyone could buy guns through the mail. There were no national age limits, waits, papers, no controls of any kind on guns in the Sears Roebuck catalog (12 pages worth), the hardware store, or even in comic books I used to read. Some of the malevolence we see, that all of us in that room want to see end are not about the guns, they’re about the social factors we would rather ignore.

    When I asked the hotel front desk, the doorman, and the cops I saw if it was safe to take a walk while I was in downtown, they all said sure, but don’t go in THIS direction, or walk in THAT part of town. Nebraska and Montana have tons of guns, but not the problems downtown Pittsburgh is wrestling with. You all better start looking at that part of this. People were listening.

    It was getting near time to close. I asked for show of hands: “How many of you really really hate guns?” At last, some audience heckle energy, and a few shouts with a lot of raised hands. One guy stood up to spew how much he hates guns. I luckily found the words again, and told him I’ll stay afterwards and we can talk as long as you like (he didn’t stay, but I would have enjoyed testing my mettle against a died-in-the-wool gun bigot like that). [] I waited till they settled back down. Softly, slowly, I breathed into the microphone, “It’s not good to hate.”

    Some nervous squirming and some snickers from those who suspected I had prepared that remark in advance. Hey, I prepared all my remarks, it took me days. I used this as a lead-in for my message about hoplophobia, the morbid fear of guns.

    There’s a lot of hate and anger in the anti-rights movement (I mostly avoided saying anti-gun anything, it was all about anti rights and pro rights). A lot of the anti-rights debate is actually a medical issue, not a policy debate. I tried to get everyone in touch with the hatred in their hearts, the hoplophobic undercurrents. People who suffer from this pernicious phobia are deserving of sympathy, and in need of treatment. I don’t think they liked that. But they heard it. Now they can just wander around in denial (a symptom of the condition by the way).

    I summarized my main points and, since Duquesne is a Catholic school, I closed with “God bless and keep America, the ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments. Thank you.” The applause was as good as any other, except for Tom who, choking back tears, got an ovation.

    Oh yes, the surprise ending. James Brady didn’t appear, because his wife Sarah fell critically ill and was hospitalized. News of the medical emergency was first announced publicly at the end of the symposium, but has not traveled far. There has been no word on her condition, said to involve pneumonia.



    --------



    I learned some things, not the least of which was how to handle such an event. Getting into shouting matches is easy. Getting your point across is easy too, but the tactics are totally different, rather alien, and quite satisfying. There’s a lot of sit quiet and listen, hold your disagreement to yourself, bite your tongue, gain trust, and choose your moment for low hanging fruit -- the basket will fill in due course.

    It also became apparent from conversation that Mr. Hemenway hates the NRA, for he sees them as intractable and unyielding on any common-sense (to him) gun proposals. He couldn’t hear, or perhaps I couldn’t find the words to let him know, that they want crime to go down as much as anyone, it serves their purposes perfectly, makes their battle to preserve rights so much easier. [] He outright rejected the idea that if a rule would disarm criminals without adversely affecting we the people, they would be there as quickly as I would. Of course his proposals, which seem reasonable to him, would place draconian repressions on your freedom, but he doesn’t see it that way. He counts numbers of dead, draws conclusions from his stats, and to paraphrase Will Smith in I Robot, may be the dumbest smart person around. Highly intelligent with a tremendous command of statistics, he seems to clutch at ignorance of underlying causes, where solutions lie.

    Pittsburgh collected 990 crime-associated guns last year. Of these 70 were possessed by their owners, and 80 had been reported stolen. nearly 70% though had been bought by straw purchasers and here’s the chilling part. The buyers were the drug-addicted girl friends of the men who wanted the guns, the women’s drug suppliers. Do you see? Arresting the women does little, they’re victims, not habitual gun runners, and unlikely to make another buy except for another boyfriend (and jail space is too valuable to waste on them). The bad guys are rarely caught with the guns, so prosecuting them is virtually impossible. I have no idea how to stop that, without banning gun sales altogether and putting 700,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun users a year at unacceptable risk.

    C-SPAN recorded the whole thing, along with several local stations. As soon as any of you hear when the broadcasts are scheduled, you’ve got to let me know, and I’ll spread the word. My arms are tired and my nose is sore (a line from my tune Miguel Row Your Coke Ashore), time to stop.

    I took some cool pictures, will post them here in a few days:
    http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm



    Alan.



    Alan Korwin
    Bloomfield Press
    "We publish the gun laws."
    4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
    Scottsdale, AZ 85254
    602-996-4020 Phone
    602-494-0679 Fax
    1-800-707-4020 Orders
    http://www.gunlaws.com
    alan@gunlaws.com
    Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
    (This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

    Thanks, Alan.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    * edited to fix typos
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Ten of the leading gun-control advocates in the nation were scheduled for a coordinated review of “reasonable” limits on the right to keep and bear arms
    The article didn't mention which ten democrat Congressmen these were ....
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    skidmark quoted:
    SNIP It’s my belief that the words exist in the universe to convince anyone of anything true, regardless of their predispositions. The trick is in finding those words, in the moment, and delivering them in a way that works, with the proper aplomb. You may not always find the words, but the words are always there.
    --Alan Korwin
    The most valuable information on the page, and some of the othersare quite valuable.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    There is much to be learned and much to be gained I think from studying, adapting and utilizing Alan Korwin's "velvet glove" approach. He very softly uses emotional tactics, impacting directly on the anti-right's gut. I for one am going to introduce some of this into my SOPs.

    Did send email to the Franklin News Post for what benefit there may be.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    Double tap
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    After reading and rereading the Op/ed piece regarding the Boones Mill Council meeting as reported in the Franklin News-Post, I exchanged emails with Mr. Charles Booth, publisher.
    fnpcharles@franklinnews-post.com

    Decide for yourself.

    Yata hey
    ================================================== ==========
    On May 19, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Xxxx Xxxxx wrote:

    Shame on you for mixing editorial opinions (implying that they are facts)with inaccurate reporting. Who gave you the "right" to carry a pen?
    http://www.thefranklinnewspost.com/article.cfm?ID=10892
    Veritas vos liberabit!

    ================================================== ==========
    ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles To: xxx XXXXX Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:07 PM Subject: Re: No weapons at Council Meetings
    Hi Mr. Xxxxx,

    Thanks for your response to the editorial. As far as we know, the story about the meeting was accurate. As far as the editorial is concerned, newspapers routinely write editorials based on stories. It is indeed an opinion and it was our opinion that, without the political squabbling in Boones Mill, the sign issue would not have an become a statewide issue. As far as we know, the Virginia Citizens Defense League was not notified of the sign before the election, although it had been up for some time. We're quite sure members of the VCDL, as we said in the editorial, were well-intentioned and we support their efforts to preserve Second Amendment rights. In this particular incident, we questioned the motivation of the loser of the election, not the VCDL, so any point trying to be made was tainted with petty politics. And we pointed out that it may be difficult to conduct town business when so many people carrying firearms cram into a small room, although we certainly support their right do so.

    Thanks,
    Charles Boothe
    publisher



    Dear Mr. Booth:
    Accuracy involves reporting the facts without bias or personal opinionwhen offered as factual. An opinion is by definition "a belief less strong than positive knowledge." The two should beidentified clearly and distinctly when intermingledso that your readers can recognize fact from fiction. I will endeavor toilluminate where your "opinions" are contrary to facts. My remarks appear inred within your Op/Ed as follows: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________________ Editorial: Franklin News-Post It's about politics, not gun rights
    It is all about rights
    Friday, May 16, 2008
    Just when we were optimistic that Boones Mill would see some peace and quiet after a bitter election, people carrying firearms and a shouting match highlighted the town council meeting Tuesday night.
    You imply that "people carrying firearms" is contrary to "peace and quiet." This is a canned scare tactic. In fact were not all attending citizens peaceful, quiet and orderly? This lead-in sentence ties three unrelated items into one misleading thought.

    A group called the Virginia Citizens Defense League sent about 40 members to the Boones Mill Town Council meeting in an apparent protest over a sign that is posted at town hall. The sign requests that no firearms be brought into the building.
    VCDL (Virginia Citizens Defense League) neither sent anyone nor organized any group of individuals to attend the Boones Mill Town Council meeting. Individuals reading of the problem, each choose seperately to attend - all members of this grass roots organization are unpaid volunteers. The previous sign and the currant sign are in violation of Virginia law. This was not an "apparent protest" but rather an attempt to show the Council the error of their ways and give them the opportunity to correct then problem without further ado. The state laws regarding premption on this matter are very clear.


    Arguments also erupted over the residency of Boones Mill Mayor Ben Flora.
    VCDL attendees took no part in this.

    Both the sign and residency question were issues during the campaign, and it seems likely the losers of the election will not let the issues die.
    Neither winners nor losers in your election had anything to do with whether this sign violated citizen's rights.

    That's sad, not only for the people in Boones Mill, but for the county as well.
    What is sad is that your council members choose to violate state law (1st sign)and then to "suggest" under color of law (2nd sign)that citizen's rights were less important than council's prejudices and baseless fears. Worse you did not chastise council for their transgressions!

    At one time, the sign prohibited firearms from being carried into town hall, but the change to a simple request seems appropriate. State law prohibits a town or city from banning guns in most public buildings, including a town hall, so residents do have a right to carry legal firearms into a public meeting.
    As the 1st sign was in violation of law, it was not legally enforceable. The 2nd sign is not "appropriate" as it too is illegal.

    The common sense question here is, "Why would anyone want to do so?"
    The "common sense question" is why do you ask? Why is it a problem to you? Myselfand many, many others take the safety of ourselves andour families as a personal responsibility.

    Speakers from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a grassroots organization based in Northern Virginia, said the sign was discriminatory and prejudicial against gun owners, thereby threatening their Second Amendment rights.
    It is discriminatory, prejudicial, threatens rights and is in violation of law.

    If anything, using such a show of force to try to prove a nebulous point is more of a threat to Second Amendment rights. Who wants to attend a town council meeting with people toting guns for no apparent reason? That's a good way to make residents question the need to give people that right in the first place.
    Show of force? Were any weapons drawn or held at ready? Soforty citizens acting quietly, voicing their opinions and quoting statute law is now a show of force! Really - now I'm ashamed of you. And as to "no apparent reason" - 1st no reason is needed but, if you must have one it's the same reason your police officers carry.......for self defence. By the way, you do not give the peoplethat right, they already have it - it is an inalienable right.

    We are firm supporters of gun rights, but we certainly don't see the point of carrying firearms to a town council meeting. The move by the Virginia Citizens Defense League was ill-advised, and nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to political sour grapes. In other words, members of the league, who apparently came here from other areas in the state, may have been well-intentioned, but they ended up involved in a political squabble they may have known nothing about.
    VCDL is in no way concerned about your politicians nor political problems. That was made very clear at the council meeting. The are citizens in and around your community that took exception to the signs - some were at the meeting. How do you think VCDL became aware of the problem? Again VCDL is not involved in any local, personal political squabble but will workto correct any attempt to infringe on citizens rights.

    Council member Peggy Steele probably spoke for most residents when she said, "That (carrying a gun at the meeting) worries me, especially if it is someone who has a temper.
    You do assume a lot here don't you. I am sure that you have hard data to back this up. Why don't you run a poll in your paper?

    And tempers did flare, especially about the residency issue, which is being looked into by the Franklin County Commonwealth's Attorney.
    Did anyone threaten anyone with bodily harm? I doubt it or you would have reported such happenings.

    We urge those who lost the election to let the commonwealth's attorney look at the issue and make a determination. Until that is done, anything said about the mayor's residency is political rhetoric at its worst. Cooler heads need to prevail here. Otherwise, it's going to be very difficult for council to operate effectively. And we certainly don't want to see a situation where sheriff's deputies are needed at every meeting.
    Who did not have cool heads? The citizens or the Council members? Are you suggesting that there may be a need for a deputy to protest citizens or council members from other council members? Or as I suspect are you mixing bad tempers of Council members, self defence tools of othersand your personal bias into an imaginedindividual that does not exist.

    BTW - This is exactly the condition that all Councils (big cities and small) in Virginia meet. Where are the problems other than Boones Mill? No Dodge City -No OK Corral. In fact the opposite is true. Legally armed citizens provide a measure of safety and are not a threat.

    Now if you have indeed read this far and are open minded (seek the truth) you should be prepared to admit that your reporting of the meeting was less than accurate and that your opinion as to why citizens chose to attend was flawed. Would you have objected ifmany people not carrying firearms crammed into the meeting? The people wished to be heard - do you wish to silence them? Perhaps you only wish to discredit them by implying that they are a threat.

    Again, I say to you, "Veritas vos liberabit." The truth will make you free.

    No permission to quote in part or whole without specific approval of author.

    [line]



    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    My right to defend my life comes only from Him who gave me that life - God alone.

    And defend it I will, be it with and combination of pen, hand, stone, stick, sword or firearm.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    My right to defend my life comes only from Him who gave me that life - God alone.

    And defend it I will, be it with and combination of pen, hand, stone, stick, sword or firearm.
    Well, lots of folks have said Man's most powerful weapon is his mind, but if that's not in your list Bob, that's OK. We understand. :P
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •