He's got a gun, we're all gonna die. How the liberals portray gun owners

Tuesday night Sung-Ho Hwang, a Immigration Lawyer went to the late showing of the new Batman movie. Mr. Hwang is licensed to carry a weapon in Connecticut. Some fraidy cats saw his accidentally visible fire arm and did what all good liberal gun haters do, they called the cops.

From the Article we get this statement.

Hwang was carrying a gun in a holster at the small of his back. He has a permit to carry the gun and said Wednesday afternoon that he had done nothing wrong.

Of course the liberal idiot Mayor had to get involved with his gun hating ways. He's of the opinion that only the police and military should have arms of any kind. That makes him a supporter of a police state.

"“Do we need guns in theaters? Do we need guns at Batman?” DeStefano asked."

Well, it would have been nice if one or two in Aurora would have. They could have made a difference, we will never know because the theater was a gun free zone. The Mayor would be proud. The theater in New Haven was not a gun free criminal empowerment zone.

"At 10:11 p.m. Tuesday, nearly 20 officers and two sergeants responded to the Criterion-Bow Tie movie theaters on Temple Street, where staff had reported a man with a handgun was inside one of the theaters"

Damn that's a lot of cops. Who was minding the store while all the coppers were at the movies? Over 20 people to check on and arrest a man that has done nothing wrong. Of course they could have called out the SWAT team and gunned hi down where he sat. Maybe they had the night off.

" “Chief Esserman decided that he was going to be arrested.”

Esserman later denied that charge. He said he arrived at the theater after the arrest took place."

The chief doesn't have a radio or cell phone? in 2012? Please. These liberal asshats get some power and think they are God like. As soon as the call came in the chief decided there would be a arrest. Why send so many cops for one man. What would have been wrong with a couple patrolmen calmly talking to the man. It's not like he was waving his gun around and screaming some whacked out something.

"Fishbein said that based on what he had read and heard about Hwang’s arrest, the incident could result in Hwang suing the city for wrongful arrest."

Good. And he should sue both the chief and the mayor personally. Too bad being a dick isn't a crime. Of course if it was, we would ave to build more prisons.

I see that the good mayor is a member of Mayors Against illegal All Guns. That explains a lot. Bloomberg's group as a whole has more criminals by percentage than gun owners. The same Crazy asshat that thinks banning sodas and baby formula is a good idea.

Two views on guns

At least they did get a pro gun person to have his say. He presented a very good article on the right to keep and bear arms. Their gun hater would fit right in with the rest of the liberal idiot pisswits that make up the register editorial board. A board that I have invited several time to go to the range with me for a class and some shooting. A invitation that has been ignored.


— KARL SCHILLING

The most important thing a government can do regarding victims of crime is to see to it that there are fewer of them.

Yes, and they could start by locking up the violent offenders. They need to be put in a cage and kept there until they can either play nice with others or they die.

Reasonable gun control legislation would help.

No it won't. They are called criminals for a reason. There is no gun control law on the books that has had any effect on a criminal.

Some victims of violent crimes take comfort in having a gun, and I would not presume to take that from them.

Yes I do and yes you would. The only people gun control affects are the law abiding victims. You would disarm the very people that should be able to protect themselves.

No one needs large-capacity ammunition magazines for self-defense or hunting. We should limit the size of magazines.

Why? Magazine capacity has nothing to do with anything. I can change magazines in my rifles in seconds. Banning something because it scares you is just liberal idiocy.

Similarly, one should not be able to purchase large quantities of ammunition. What is a large amount is debatable, but 6,000 rounds would certainly be too much.

What you consider a large quantity is simple conjecture. The young lady that just won a gold medal at the Olympics shoots 500 to 1,000 rounds a day in practice. Your idea of large quantity and mine are two different numbers. When I go to the range, I usually shoot a few hundred rounds. Depending on what I'm shooting, it could be over a 1,000 rounds. Keep your hands off my stockpile.

The ban on assault weapons should not have been allowed to lapse. It was a good idea, it helped, and it kept no one from hunting or protecting themselves.

Assault weapons is a term that the gun haters have perverted to suit their own needs. True assault rifles are regulated under the NFA34. To own one you must submit to a very intense FBI background check and pay a $200 tax. That doesn't include the cost of the rifle it's self, that can run into the thousands.
The failed AWB stopped no crimes. The FBI statistics show that all long guns are used in less than 2% of all crimes.

Those who have guns, especially handguns, should be required to have some training in how to use them effectively and responsibly.

Most permit holder have more and better training than most police officers. Unless a police officer is also a gun person, they practice one day and qualify the next because they have to.

When The Des Moines Register published a previous article on gun control, one of the online commentators stated that he wanted to carry a handgun because a relative was mugged on a bus. I would submit that everyone would be better off letting the mugger have the wallet rather than opening fire in a bus with passengers on it.

And what if want they want is your life?

Some want to have military-style weapons in case the government turns on us. I have seen this expressed in online answers to gun control articles. I would answer that if the United States becomes a dictatorship and the military turns on us, having an AR-15 in the closet won’t change that.

I like my "military" style rifles because they are fun to shoot. The United States will never be a dictatorship because the politicians are realists. They know that of the 80,000,000 gun owners, there would be enough saying hell no to keep that from happening.

— MATT WINDSCHITL

We have laws that require a person to submit to and pass a federal background check before purchasing a firearm. This law also prohibits criminals and certain disqualified people from possessing a firearm

.

And it works rather well. I have had exactly one person denied on a background check.They didn't get the gun they wanted.

We have laws that restrict where a firearm can be carried and also how a firearm must be transported. Private businesses have the right to restrict people from carrying a firearm into their business, even if a patron of that business has a permit to carry a weapon.

And we gun owners and permit holders have the right not to patronize such businesses.

If an individual wants to carry a weapon for self-defense, they must first submit to training and a federal background check at their local sheriff’s office.

The 2nd Amendment is the only one we have to beg permission to exercise. Maybe we need to make people get a permit and training before they can spout their opinion. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

Firearms are inanimate objects and are intended to be used for self-defense, sport and, most importantly, defending our freedoms and liberties. Instead of calling for more gun control and new regulations, let’s talk, instead, about crime control and focus our attention on getting criminals off our streets and into prison where they can be adequately punished for their crimes.

Except they would rather vilify lawful gun owners and slap the violent offenders on the wrist. We need to turn oour prisons back into prisons instead of a spa/resort for criminals. They should be in their cages 23 hours a day.No cable, no TV and no weight rooms and pool tables.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said something along the line of “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Many Americans, including myself, consider our right to keep and bear arms an essential liberty and will not trade it for political expediency or the mere perception of safety.

Gun control laws are just that, a illusion of safety.

More gun hating from the Antigun Register

Another gun hater wanting to limit some of the rights codified in the Constitution. How loud would this liberal idiot pisswit scream if we made him get a permit to write articles for the paper?

Neither Congress nor the Iowa Legislature is likely to approve any new gun restrictions, and that’s probably just as well.

We didn't get "shall issue" on the first try.

Limiting the size of ammunition clips might limit the carnage in the next shooting, but beyond that it’s hard to see how new gun laws could deter the next delusional gunman.

Ammunition clip? What is that? I think you mean "magazine". And with a little practice, magazines can be changed in a matter of seconds.

That has been the thrust of recent gun laws in Iowa, such as the “shall issue” law to permit just about anyone to carry loaded, concealed weapons just about anywhere.

As is our right. The Constitution does not give any rights. The right we have are God giveen and the Constitution is supposed to limit what the government can do.

Along with arming ever more of the population have come proposals to give gun owners a license to kill if they feel threatened and immunity from accountability if they shoot an innocent person by mistake.

The stand your ground law is not a "licence to kill". Maybe you should try reading the bill. Or talk to Jay Rodney Lewis. You are over 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than you are a carry permit holder.

the proposed Iowa amendment would establish an unfettered right to “acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use” guns. It would prohibit the licensing, registration or taxation of arms.

I should not need the permission of some bureaucrat to exercise a right codified in the Constitution. Iowa is only one of eight states without a 2nd Amendment style amendment in their Constitution.

The history of gun control in the United States is a bit murky. Apparently there were a few gun-control efforts prior to the Civil War, mostly in the South, where they were intended to discourage dueling and to prevent blacks from obtaining weapons.

Gun control laws enacted after the civil war had one purpose. That was to deny guns to Blacks. The thought of the day was "we can't have negro's going around armed". Gun control laws have never been about guns. They have always been about control.

The change in attitude on concealed weapons has been one of the most remarkable shifts in public opinion in America history. What was once regarded as despicable is now almost fashionable. State law, instead of limiting concealed weapons to people who need them, such as police detectives, now makes it easy for almost anyone to carry concealed. It has been a triumph of marketing by the gun-sellers’ lobby.

And the problem is? Are you one of those people that would have only the police and military armed? That's called a police state and the American people have rejected that idea. The very fact that over 80,000,000 people own firearms gives the politicians pause.

As quaint as it sounds, lawmakers should also consider returning to the traditional notion that concealed weapons are dishonorable. If people want to assert their right to carry a gun, fine. Give them permits to carry lethal weapons. But require them to strap on a holster and carry openly, because the public should have the right to know who’s going armed

.

Yeah. let's strap on our gun so the bad guys will know who to shoot first. Then they can steal the weapon. Just more liberal idiot piswittery.
The last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, It's not the "Bill of Needs".

The Register’s Young Adult Contributors Board on guns in America

The Registers young adult editorial board shows almost to a person the brainwashing against guns. They would do away with the parts of the Constitution they don't like. Just think, these are the people that are going to be running our country in a few years. Sometimes I just want to bang my head on the wall.

Second Amendment of the Constitution. We must realize that something written over 200 years ago might not still apply to the country we live in today. While I don’t wish to encroach on peoples’ freedom,

— Hannah Soyer, Johnston

The Constitution is still relevant and still the law of the land. I swore a oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To you, it's just a old piece of paper, suitable for wiping your ass.

Many are questioning the necessity of including larger guns in the realm of rights that the Second Amendment provides.

— Thomas Weihe, Pella

Define "larger" gun. The Constitution says Bear Arms. Not bear small arms that are politically correct.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but the Constitution doesn’t say which kinds. The fact that just about anybody with the money can go into a gun shop in most states and walk out with a deadly weapon is unsettling. Regardless of training, most states allow people to buy guns based on only age, citizenship and criminal record.

— Garrett Trotter, Ankeny

As it should be. It is up to the buyer to know how to use the firearm and to seek out the training that will make them a safe and careful shooter. We gun dealers are here to sell guns to responsible adults. We are not your mommy or your nanny.

It didn't take long for the gun control lobby to try to take advantage of a tragic shooting. The national media yell about assault weapons bans, yet no assault weapons were used, and what is the definition of assault weapon?

— Adam Rix, Urbandale

That paragon of virtue Pier Morgan, the liberal idiot pisswit, was on twitter before the crime scene was cleaned up complaining about our gun laws. All I can tell him is if you don't like the laws in this country, haul your limey ass back to (formerly) Great Britain.

"Assault Weapon" is a term nmade up by gun hater Josh Sugarman to scare people that don't know better.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

Lies and diversion are all the gun haters have.

Background checks are not enough. Holmes bought four guns and over 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the 60 days before the shooting — all of it legally. If ammunition were regulated like prescription drugs, stockpiling unreasonable quantities in a short period of time could have been prohibited,

— Rachel Wolf, Ames

What is your definition of "unreasonable" amount of ammunition? Most of the gun owners I know shoot a few hundred rounds at every range trip. We also save money by buying in bulk. Ammunition was regulated from 1968 until 1982. Every ammo transaction was recorded in a log book. There were never any crimes solved from it. That's why it was discontinued.

It saddens me that instead of letting the victims and their families try to heal, we as a nation have politicized this tragedy and made it a central part of the gun-control debate.

— Noah Kruse, Altoona

That's because the gun haters need to dance in the blood of the victims. It's how they get attention. It's disgusting that they were on all kinds of social media within hours of the tragedy. Except for expressing our condolences, all of the pro gun bloggers were silent until we had the facts.

I can walk into any gun store and purchase a rifle because I do not have a criminal record. They’ll run my name through a database and hand me my gun. What they don’t know is what I plan to use it for, my current state of mental health, or the fact that I don’t even know how to set the safety.

— Mycaela Crouse, Hedrick

I'm a gun dealer, not a mind reader. You are supposed to be a adult. You are responsible for getting the proper training. Again, I'm not your mommy or nanny.

the situation points us toward two other major causes which we must fix: 1) a culture of death, where the importance and dignity of human life is stripped away in several ways — from warfare to negligence of the ill, aged, and weak — which can take a mind and warp it to violence; and 2) the need for improved access to mental health care for all, a societal awareness of the warning signs of mental breakdown, and a removal of the stigma surrounding those who seek medical care for their minds.

— Spencer Sheaff, Des Moines

So we're going to blame violent video games? I agree that there should be better access to mental health care.