Guns without controls

Virginia Times Community ^ | July 20, 2004 | Del. Kenneth R. “Ken” Plum (D-36th)

[MosesKnows]

To Virgnia Times Community.

This question your article posed intrigued me considerably. "How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?"

The answer is, you don't know, and were the question posed correctly the answer would be the same. "How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?

Your statement that “None of our constitutional rights are absolute” could not be further from the constitutionally truth. Perhaps you are confusing rights with responsibilities. All rights carry responsibility. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not a limitation of free speech; it is free speech. However, there are consequences in law if exercising your rights results in harm to either person or property.

With firearms in mind please explain this logic. We write laws because the people CANNOT be trusted and the people obey the laws because they CAN be trusted.

[Mulder]

So Virginia allows guns to be worn openly? Interesting, contrasted with their law on radar detectors - you can't even possess those!

All states seem to have a few quirky laws.

But I'm much rather have a gun carried openly than a radar detector.

[taxcontrol]

How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?
-------

Must be terrible to live in constant fear like that.
I would answer this question by simply stating "...When that person jumps up, pulls out his pistol, and starts shooting other people."

In the author's world, the outcome is that the author dies.

In my world, the outcome is that the shooter will like be dead before he gets to shoot very many people.

I'm beginning to like Virgina more and more.

[Eastbound]

Well-rebutted!

[Kay Ludlow]

But I'm much rather have a gun carried openly than a radar detector.

That's for sure. PA has it's share of quirky laws too, although thanks to a review last decade, we are no longer required to have a horseman with a lantern ride ahead of our automobiles at night ;-)

[Sofa King]

You're shooting fish in a barrel.

Pro-gun control arguments never stand up to facts or reason.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Unfortunately, this hare-brained writer's comments on the valid purposes of firearms ownership sound like they're straight out of NRA glossies. I'm not a member of that pernicious organization, but they get my name from other lists and send me all sorts of garbage about the joys of duck hunting and target shooting for sport. Rarely a word about self-defense, and NEVER a word about keeping an out-of-control government at bay, And never a word about the dangers of registration schemes, since the risk of being deprived of one's fun little hobbies hardly constitutes danger.

[paul51]

Let me know your views at kenplum@aol.com.

LOL. He asked for it

[blau993]

They may think it is too bad that the people who get shot are often innocent bystanders who unluckily find themselves in the area of gunfire.

I live in the Washington DC area and read both the Washington Post and the Washington Times daily. Both papers cover Virginia as well as DC and Maryland. I don't recall EVER seeing a story about any "innocent bystanders" in Virginia being hurt in a gunfight involving law abiding citizens exercising their right to carry arms. True, there are frequent stories about bystanders hit by gunfire, but they are invariably in the "gun free" Distict of Columbia and involve shootouts between rival criminals, usually gang members.

This gentleman is a propogandist, not a journalist.

[chuknospam]

bump to email the idiot

[GovernmentShrinker]

How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?

Well, if they're carrying openly, at least you know to keep an eye on them.

Why are these gun-grabber nuts suddenly all in a tizzy over OPEN carry? DO they think that somehow the few potential murderous wackos out there were less dangerous when they were carrying CONCEALED? And needless to say, that little group is continuing to carry concealed -- it's hardly the open-carriers that anyone needs to be worrying about.

[Prime Choice]

Courtesy of http://www.a-human-right.com/

[Richard Kimball]

Well, I'll bet kenplum@aol.com gets a lot of responses. I didn't bother to read the whole thing, but in the first two paragraphs he used about four lame cliches.

[paul51]

I read your gun phobic article. Just wanted you to know I think it's a bunch of nonsense. Most of the ridiculous arguments you make have long since been dispelled by clearer thinking people. The only thing your 'gun control' ideas will result in is preventing responsible, law abiding people from being able to defend themselves (yes, people do own firearms for reasons other than collection and hobbies).

Sent

[Larry Lucido]

BTW ....hello all from North Florida ....

Welcome from southern Michigan, Reb.

[Larry Lucido]

"or at least the 'jawbone of an ass'...democrat."

LOL! Except that the jawbone of a democrat never stops moving.

[Bob]

It's worse than that; he's both a propogandist and a delegate in the state legislature.

Del. Kenneth R. “Ken” Plum (D-36th)

[LibKill]

This article has KKKlintoon on it.

[William Tell]

GovernmentShrinker said: "Rarely a word about self-defense [from the NRA]..."

For several years, I think, my membership included a monthly publication entitled "American Guardian" which was dedicated to self-defense. This was discontinued in favor of a monthly entitled "America's First Freedom", which focusses mainly on the political issues associated with the Second Amendment. But I do see self-defense articles also.

Perhaps if you rejoined, they might find reason to begin "American Guardian" again. Other options have included "American Hunter" and "American Rifleman".

Since my wife is also a member, we receive two of the publications. What a deal!

[Oatka]

Even if this guy didn't have a "D" after his name, you could still tell he was a Democrat just from the emotional and irrational tone of the article. About the only thing he left out was "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY . . ."

He asked for feedback (must be into pain and suffering). If you do reply, take time to offer your rebuttal at the bottom of the article. So far there's only three; mine is pending.