MO Comments
On this page, I’ll list some of the comments I’ve made around the Web on the issue of the Second Amendment and self-defense.
TYT, I’ve never watched Beck and this is my first time watching you. But I can’t help but wonder if you are a fake liberal – feigning offense to Beck’s bashing of Obama’s communist upbringing so that you can post a video exposing Obama as he lies to a black church about where his parents came together to conceive him.
Obama’s lie about his origin is typical of would be kings & emperors who want to convince the people of their Divine right to rule. Thanks for your work in exposing Mr. Obama.
SecondAmendmnt said on August 27, 2009 at about 9:10am
Why carry a loaded gun into a church, school, restaurant, or ANYWHERE? For PROTECTION!
When the murderous nut walks into your workplace and starts executing people, you’ll be begging for an armed citizen, like Mr. Kostric, to save your a__. “The violent history” of our world is why law-abiding citizens must exercise their right to bear arms. Surrender your responsibility to defend yourself (and those around you) to the police & the SS and you’ll soon find that you’ve lost other rights also.
SecondAmendmnt said on August 27, 2009 at about 9:30am
When cold-blooded murder is committed and the evidence is crystal clear (like when Ruby shot Oswald in front of a crowd and a TV audience), the murderer has forfeited his life. This exceeds the “reasonable doubt” standard to reach the level of “no doubt”.
I’m putting together a page in honor of our war heroes who’ve been cut down by the war in our own streets:
War Dead
Michael said on: August 9, 2009 at about 4:45pm (but comment form was broken)
While Obama and Sotomayor have definitely created a sense of urgency, I never felt able to exercise my Constitutional right to bear arms. My home State of Maryland has long been run by anti-gun extremists who restrict the ability to carry concealed guns.
After being robbed at gunpoint for the third time, however, I am extremely motivated to exercise my right to own and carry a gun. I will soon find out if Maryland really won’t allow me to protect myself.
By the way, I favor a concealed gun because I recognize that many people feel uneasy around guns. If they don’t attack me then they won’t have any need to know the gun is there. Further, openly carrying a firearm would show my hand(gun) to the criminals and help them to create a more thorough plan. If they see it and still want to jump me, they’ll know to go after my weapon first. I don’t believe in giving criminals any more advantage than they already have.
Michael on July 22nd, 2009 2:09pm
It is unfortunate that Mr. Noble was alone. A lone defender of the Constitution. Very sad. But I’m surprised he was permitted to get anywhere near an Obama rally with a gun. Even before it became clear that BHO would win the Democratic nomination, there was real anxiety that someone would take a shot at him.
Michael says: July 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm
As far as the attacks you endured for exposing hypocrisy, I’m sorry for that. However, I can’t apologize for these other so-called conservatives because I believe I’m a more rational thinker than they have shown themselves to be.
We have irrational extremists on all sides of all issues and they make the most noise. They are doing great damage to this nation. The level-headed ones – who know how to really listen – are mercilessly attacked.
I consider myself to be extremely conservative but that doesn’t prevent me from trying to understand where the extreme liberal is coming from. I’m grown up enough to accept that just because I believe it doesn’t mean I’m correct and the same applies to the liberals. There’s no need for name-calling. That just erects and fortifies walls. Civility is so much more productive.
I could’ve gone into politics but that’s an invitation for dumpster divers. I believe our best minds avoid public office for this reason (and the nonstop fundraising).
July 16, 11:55 AM
Bruce says:
“That is precisely the allegation. You can’t see the condition of the unarmed robber… We know he fell to the floor. The prosecution claims the shots fired… after THAT were what killed him.”I’ve not seen the video. I’m only responding to what I understand from your description. It’s my impression that both robbers were present when the shooting occurred and then the armed robber fled. (If the unarmed robber can’t be seen thereafter, how did the D.A. determine he was unconscious?)
Here’s what I meant by my “more interesting” scenario: during the chaos of an attack, it’s understandable (even justifiable) if an unarmed robber is shot. This is self-defense. The first shot falls within this category. The “kill” shots in this case were clearly murder. Can shooting up an unconscious person be anything but? But what if there had only been the one shot and it had only come AFTER the armed robber had fled – when the unarmed robber might have been detained for the cops?
July 16, 11:24 AM
@Warrington Faust
Carl Rowan is the particular hypocrite reporter you speak of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan
Sickens me…
Posted by: Michael at July 15, 2009 1:47 PM
I don’t share your opinion that the Okla. case is a good test of empathy in judgment. The pharmacist is a murderer. Period.
I am a strict constructionist. I’m also opposed to immigrants who come here in violation of our laws – just as I would be opposed to you pitching a tent in my yard without my consent.
I’ve been robbed at gunpoint multiple times and certainly feel for other victims. I believe in the right to bear arms and to use them defensively. Filling an unconscious man with lead – not defensive. Once the pharmacist returned to the store, he believed he had a risk-free opportunity to commit murder.
The case might have been more interesting if he shot the unarmed robber in the head AFTER the armed robber had fled. Then we would have to ask whether the pharmacist still felt his safety was threatened. If an unarmed person walks up to you and demands your wallet, can you shoot him? How about shooting an armed robber in the back?
Every group has its hypocrites and true believers. Why spotlight the Web comments of a few hypocrites as if they speak for the majority of conservatives?
Getting away from what is written in the code gives us hot female teachers having sex with students and getting slapped on the wrist by the courts while a man in a similar position would get no mercy.
There are better cases out there to use for an empathy argument – such as a convict losing his ability to appeal because papers weren’t filed on time by his lawyer even though it was the court that gave the wrong deadline.
I believe we have a lot of bad laws but it is still my obligation to obey them until we can get them changed or repealed. If I don’t follow the law then I should expect to be punished.
July 15, 3:58 AM
Dave, I read where you say:
minimal “time, place and manner” regulations and I believe reasonable people can agree on that.But once again, the inclusion of the word “minimal” concerns me because defining it depends on one’s opinion. Your examples of clearly extreme actions causing disturbances don’t match my complaint.
If I’m not disturbing the peace or in any other way violating the rights of others, am I not able to speak freely? And I have a problem with requiring permits to assemble for protests but still the protesters can exercise their right – as long as they aren’t creating a public disturbance which would be a violation of other citizens rights.
If I draw a gun in a public place and threaten someone, I would expect to lose my right to keep and bear arms based on irresponsible behavior. To fire a gun at the ceiling while in a grocery store would also result in a criminal conviction.
When I enter private property, certainly the property owner has the right to forbid me to bring a gun in – and I have the right to choose not to enter a place where I’ll be defenseless.
The right to gun ownership and possession, like all other rights, comes with corresponding responsibility to assure that such possession doesn’t infringe on other rights of fellow citizens. I have no problem with training and demonstrated proficiency being required (we require driver’s to pass tests before they can get behind the steering wheel and be a threat to the public). But, it makes me angry when my government forbids me to bear arms in complete defiance of the Second Amendment.
The State should have to prove that I am not fit to exercise any right that is assured me by the Constitution before they are permitted to deny me such right.
Michael said on Monday, July 13, 2009:
Very well written petition. It’s good to know that others are as offended at the infringement as I am. But with the gushing over Sotomayor only taking second place to Obama’s own ascent and the Democrats solid domination of Congress, I can’t help but have flashbacks of Hitler’s Germany.
For years, I’ve heard “boob-tube” and “idiot-box” used to refer to TVs. I’ve finally arrived at the conclusion that such devices have effectively turned the majority in this country into zombies who don’t realize that our Constitution has been and continues to be gutted.
Michael // Jul 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I’m glad his family survived but I can’t help but wonder: what defense did he have? Despite how you feel about guns, you have to admit that the criminals have them. So how is it responsible for a father to leave his family unprotected?
All human life is valuable but is that value equal? I believe the life of the victim is worth much more than the life of the offender. When you have enough nerve to point a gun at another human being, you should be prepared for the end of your life.
Posted by Michael Osborne, Maryland – Monday, July 13, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.
As a three-time unarmed victim of armed robbery, I can say that the Second Amendment is already on life support. My state (Maryland) has effectively kept me unprotected while criminals (who by definition don’t have any respect for gun laws) are usually armed. For some of you, like Mr. Obama, the Second Amendment may be something to joke about. I find nothing funny about it and pray that when you have a gun pulled on you that you are able to legally protect yourself.
Posted By: Michael | July 12, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Having been robbed by armed criminals THREE times in my life, I’m sick of being defenseless. Why must I have to choose between abiding by the law of my State and self-preservation? Not only do I have the right to defend myself – assured me by our Constitution, but I feel strongly that since our representatives can fund so many other things that they call “rights” but aren’t spelled out in our Constitution or its Amendments then they should fund my purchase of a self-defense tool and the training needed to handle it safely.
Comment was submitted in the “Share Your Wisdom” box at the bottom of the survey on July 8, 2009
If I’m understanding the logic of the lower court’s opinion then mild restrictions properly infringe on my Second Amendment rights.
How can this be? Doesn’t the Second Amendment plainly state that my right shall not be infringed? Why is it that I don’t see any gray area there? Why is there no reference to the severity of the infringement? Is it because there isn’t supposed to be ANY infringement?
I’m not a lawyer. I’m just a citizen who can read and comprehend English. Tell me where I’m wrong on this.
Michael said on Sunday, July 05, 2009
I live in Maryland, but as a victim of multiple armed robberies, I have strong feelings about the need to defend my Constitutional right to carry a gun on my person – not just in the home.
I’ve finally been pushed to the point where I must become a part of the struggle to defend our rights.
As I was searching for more information on the topic of Second Amendment infringement by our representatives, I found this article.
Since you mentioned O.J., I’d like to note that his ex-wife and friend were slashed. Murderers don’t need to use guns. Even if some way was found to get all the guns out of the hands of criminals, they would just use knives, bats, or anything else they can get their hands on.
In my most recent mugging, there were three of them and one of me. The gun they had really wasn’t necessary. However, had I been armed, they wouldn’t have stolen anything from me that night.
I am tired of criminals being the only ones allowed to bear arms. No, tired isn’t the right word, I’m ANGRY!
Michael said on Sunday, July 05, 2009
