I don’t know bro, I like Norte Dame too, pretty much my 2nd favorite team when not rooting for my boys in the Buckeye state.
In any event, I’m not too disheartened about Michigan’s woeful start for obvious reasons.

This is going to be an interesting season that’s for sure.

http://conoscetechi.blogspot.com Heh.

Hey bro, congrats on Illinois. It seems as if they are a legit contender in the Big 10 conference this year. Best start in 13 years in conference play or something like that.

I live in the Notre Dame part of the world. It is a sad year for a team that is evidently rebuilding.

Thanks for the post, Jolynna.

Don’t despair about the Irish too long. Charlie Weiss is a fine coach and look at Illinois — we just rebounded from a 2-9 season last year to knocking off Ohio State and going to the Rose Bowl this year!

[...] Commentor Prophet Joe over at Rodeo Of The Mind has a post up about gun control. [...]

[...] In the honorable mention category, since he comments on Alabama Improper and 7.62mm Justice, we have Prophet Joe. Even though he is a Yankee, he has a post up about sensible gun control I think that all of us southerners can get behind. But then, what do I know… where I’m from wasn’t even a state during the civil war. [...]

Hmm.. I’d happily support almost all of this. Here are a few issues.

1. Who gives a crap about the database anyway? People who fear that aren’t living in the same world I am. The government can already track your purchases through the barcodes that are on everything or through your credit cards. Even pawn shop purchases are now computerized and easily traced. We all have a social security number, most adults have either a state ID or a driver’s license. All these methods are already in place to track our patters of …well, everything we do.

2. NEXT - Remove the restrictions on where one can carry. Every place that is restricted from CHL carry may as well have a sign, “FREE SHOOTING GALLERY”. I am about to graduate from the Univeristy of Houston Downtown and I tell ya, I WISH I could carry on campus! We’ve had two car–jackings, two Attempted sexual assaults, an indecent exposure and at least five muggings in the school parking lot in since January. It’s a high crime area near the city and county jails! Fortunately, we also have our own police force and I do think that REDUCES the number of incidents, but unlike the whiney little pussies that I go to class with (we’ve discussed this topic since VT), I’d rather protect myself than rely on a lousy college cop to protect me. Concealed Hangun holders as a lot are generally law abiding, if not law enforcing (I’m EX-military police thanks to a seizure disorder) citizens. I’d trust CHL holders faster than I’d trust Houston PD!. Maybe set up a School Marshall class designed to certify students to conceal carry on campus. These students would then be considered reserve officers (or the sworn in posse if you like) with rights to detain and arrest as necessary.

About the only places that I’d still restrict the right to carry are bars a (51% establishments here in Texas), and that’s a just a trade off as I’ve experienced how much stupidity goes on in bars.

Having a pair of scumbag, drug abusing, mentally defective felonious brothers, I’d likely make my restrictions on the mentally ill/criminal possession of a weapon much, much stricter. And they would NEVER be able to buy one legally. EVER. For any reason. And any of these people committing a drug crime would carry a mandatory life without parole sentence.

AND, if a person possesses a DD-214 (a discharge from the military) that is honorable in nature, then that person goes to the head of the line and does not have to take any stupid classes.

See what you did? You got me to ranting. Now I’m going to have to go and elaborate on all this on my own…jeeze… more work to do

Later!

Hi Todd,

Thanks for stopping by the Rodeo. I agree with your assessment of the database, but I would like to add that private gun transactions are still not “officially” tracked. I also agree with the tougher stance on drug abuse, etc. and I really LIKE your DD-214 suggestion too!

Semper Vigilans!

I would like to clarify that I am well aware of the gun laws of Illinois and Chicago. I am fully aware that I am unable to own AND have possession of a handgun in the city of Chicago (though it is legal to own a handgun, so long as it is stored outside of the city). If you had read my letter you will note that I never specifically said that I was talking about the guns laws that exist in Illinois and Chicago. That was an incorrect assumption that you made. I was talking about federal laws, not local and state laws. Every state and major metropolis has their own laws, some strict and some not so strict, but very few unified. In my opinion there needs to be a more standardized set of federal laws to help regulate the purchasing and ownership of guns.

My point of limiting the number of gun purchases over a given period of time, of which one a month was clearly stated as a suggestion, was not talking about the laws in Chicago. But, in some parts of this country I could go and legally purchased as many guns as I had money for, and no one would think twice about it. I fully understand the desire to collect guns (I will someday inheret a sizeable gun collection of over 30 guns), but there is no NEED to be able to purchase large quantities of guns at once. There may be a desire, but there is no need. A gun collector can simply wait a while to purchase more guns. Or, one possible option would be to allow mulitple purchases at one time but limit how often you can take delivery of the guns.

And, I never claimed to be a gun expert. Nor did I even imply it. I claimed to have been an NRA certified shooting instructor in the past. That was a statement of fact. Nothing more. Nothing less. You presumed to think I was stating I was a gun expert, and in that regard you were wrong.

In regards to your suggestions, some of them simply do not make all that much sense. Gun ownership is not a right. It is a privelage. Yes, the 2nd amendment grants our right to bear arms, but that was written in regards to militias, back in an era when the defense of our country wasn’t a job handled entirerly by a standing army. The frontier was too vast for an army to ensure safety along our borders, or even within our borders. So, local militias, which were initially formed to overthrow the British, were needed to augment the national defenses of this country. That right to own and bear arms has, over the centuries, changed to a privelage. The federal government can revoke that privelage. Local and state governments have enacted laws that override our so-called 2nd amendment rights, and the federal government can, too. They have made it illegal to own fully automatic firearms and for felons to own firearms. Because it is a privelage (and even if you think of it as a right) that means that the individual has the choice on whether or not to own firearms. To force someone to own a firearm not only violates their right to free expression, it also makes absolutely no sense what so ever. What if the person was a pacifist? You would violate their rights and force them to pick up a gun? You would violate their rights and force them to own a gun? That shows a complete lack of respect to your fellow countrymen and their beliefs. Having stricter FEDERAL gun laws in place to try and stop such incidents as the recent shooting at Virginia Tech would not violate anyone’s privelage/right to own firearms. Such laws would in fact ensure our privelage/right to own firearms by reducing the risk of someone being able to “go postal” and start indiscriminately shooting people. It wouldn’t stop all such people, but it would help reduce the number of such incidents. And, every such incident only brings us one step closer to completely losing the privelage/right to legally own any firearm, in any capacity. Frankly, I would gladly put up with some stricter laws to ensure my continued ownership of guns. To think that we can never lose our privelage/right to own guns shows a total failure to grasp the reality of the US Constitution. Any amendment to the Constitution can be changed. If you don’t believe me look the amendment to ban alcohol and it’s subseqent revocation. Our government can revoke the 2nd amendment at any time. We need to ensure that they don’t, and part of that is making sure that it is harder for certain “undesirable” to obtain a firearm.

Hi John. Welcome and thanks for visiting The Rodeo!

Let me respond to your comment by paragraph (in order):

First, given that you are an Illinois resident and you were writing to an Illinois newspaper, I thought it relevant to discuss the current state of affairs in terms of Mayor Daley and Gov. Blagojevich’s concept of “common sense” gun laws. Although you come from one of the most tightly controlled cities in the country, I didn’t read any objections to those current laws. Even in your response above, I hear no argument against the total handgun ban in Chicago. In fact, all I do hear you argue for is tighter restrictions on people’s rights at a Federal level.

Secondly, you state that no one “needs” more than 1 gun a month. Perhaps. Perhaps they do. Say, for example, I decide to replace the .22LR rifles at the local Boy Scout camp. We could choose to replace all 12 rifles at once and that would seem like an entirely reasonable course of action. Or if I hit the lotto, or inherited a large sum of money, I would like to go buy 3-4 different pistols I’ve been wanting for an upcoming target competition. Again, a perfectly reasonable decision for a law abiding person to choose — unless, of course, YOUR concept is followed. You see, I can envision reasonable circumstances where multiple purchases are entirely fine.

In regard to being a “gun expert”, you obviously listed your NRA certification for the purpose of stating your credentials. You didn’t explicitly claim to be a “gun expert”, but the implication is certainly there — one doesn’t become a “NRA certified shooting instructor” and spend 3 years teaching others to shoot without some level of expertise greater than the average citizen or even the average gun owner.

In your final paragraph above, you state quite clearly: “Gun ownership is not a right. It is a privelage (sic)” — WRONG, Mr. Videll, it is a Right granted by the U.S. Constitution (more on that later). You also say, incorrectly, that: “that was written in regards to militias, back in an era when the defense of our country wasn’t a job handled entirerly by a standing army.” WRONG AGAIN. The courts, as recently as March 9th of this year, have reaffirmed that “the People” (note the capitalization of the word in the Second Amendment) refers to individual rights, not militias, not states, not armies or national guards — people. You and me. The Constitution says (paraphrasing) that you and I shall not be infringed from owning and using weapons for personal self-defense or in defense of our country.

Specifically, read the March 9, 2007 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In overturning Washington, DC’s total ban on handguns, the Court stated “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government.”

You go on to say “To force someone to own a firearm not only violates their right to free expression, it also makes absolutely no sense what so ever. What if the person was a pacifist? You would violate their rights and force them to pick up a gun? You would violate their rights and force them to own a gun? That shows a complete lack of respect to your fellow countrymen and their beliefs.” By lack of respect, do you mean the same lack of respect enforcing stricter gun laws on law abiding citizen shows? I was making a point. YOU deem 1 gun a month reasonable. Mayor Daley deems 0 guns a month reasonable. Maybe I deem 100 guns a month reasonable. Unless we stick to the Constitutionally mandated standard (”shall not be infringed“) then it becomes subjective or arbitrary. When it does, who do you think is going to decide our fate — the average citizen, or the elitist powers in control like Daley and Blagojevich? (as a side note, I was being satirical in my post — a point which you apparently missed).

Finally, you say “Our government can revoke the 2nd amendment at any time. We need to ensure that they don’t, and part of that is making sure that it is harder for certain “undesirable” to obtain a firearm.” WRONG again, Mr. Videll. The government can’t revoke it, the People can by repealing it, but that requires a 75% majority (as did repealing Prohibition).

While I agree with you that making it harder for unstable or legally unqualified people is desirable, your proposals don’t really do that. Virginia had a 1 gun-a-month restriction. That didn’t stop the VT massacre. More restrictive gun laws actually encourage these types of shootings. Whacko-s like Cho Seung-Hui can run rampant through campus buildings shooting repeatedly without much concern about anyone shooting back because guns are banned on most campuses. Read up on Professor John Lott’s research about “More guns, less crime”. Here is a link to an old interview and the publication info.

In the end, the old adage, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is true. Furthermore, your plan is just a baby step toward that reality. It could read “when buying many guns is outlawed, only the outlaws will buy many guns“. I go back to my original conclusion: “we can focus on prosecuting just the criminals and not the law abiding citizens.”
Again, thanks for visiting The Rodeo. Come back soon!

ProphetJoe

Dear Sir: Please know that here in Canada, as you may be aware, we have both gun control laws and firearm registration laws which have done nothing to slow down the increase in gun-related crimes. These laws have also not stopped shootings at schools and campuses. No, there has not been such a horror as what occurred at Virginia Tech, but approx. 17 years ago there was a mass shooting at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal where there were 14 fatalities and last year at Dawson College, again in Montreal, there was one student shot dead with multiple victims who managed to somehow survive.
In no way am I trying to compare crimes which occur in one country to another, but rather I wanted to inform you that gun control laws did not prevent such tragedies.

Thanks for participating, Deborah. You make my point quite well. The focus shouldn’t be on guns, which are just a tool. The focus should be on behavior — criminal behavior to be exact. When a criminal knows there may be well-armed, defensive-minded citizens in the crime area, he or she thinks twice about it. Furthermore, when a criminal uses a gun (or any other weapon) in a crime, hold HIM (or her) responsible! Prof. Lott’s studies show that a very high percentage of the murders committed with handguns were committed by people with criminal backgrounds! Why, then are they loose on the streets to target the “good guys”??

PJ

Greetings from Arizona,
The gun legislation out here is infamous for its contents such as: “It is illegal to shoot a rattlesnake in December from your horse.” Thats about as tough as they get. I consider myself a responsible gun owner, I enjoy hunting and target practice. However there are many residents of this city, who do not display a great deal of responsibility with their firearms. I have met people at gun shows who talk about pulling out theie handguns and waving them at people in instances of road rage! It may end up affecting all of us out here unfortunately. In our case I would like to see tighter gun restrictions. A little inconvience for me and other law biding citizens seems to be the price we have to pay for others mistakes.

I’m sure that many of you have heard the story bout a year ago of the serial killer in Phoenix known as “The Baseline Killer”. He would randomly shoot people downtown, and got away with it for about a year, he killed about 11 people in all. But to my suprise the overall attitude twoard guns didn’t change much, almost as if the citizens truly realized that this man was a psychopath who was going to commit these crimes regardless of extra state fees and longer waiting periods for hand guns. This presents the problem though: How do we combat this kind of person? Coming up with a solution to stop ruthless killers before they strike. Its a problem as old as our history.

I am so divided over this issue, law biding citizens should always be able to cary guns. It would definitely deter some criminals if it were common knowledge , yet guns were designed for one purpose only: to kill. Sure they have secondary uses including “plinking”, hunting etc. , but their sole purpose remains a killing weapon. I apologize that I havent presented an itelligent arguement one way or the other. The VA Tech tragedy has sent my emotions into a frenzy to the point where I was ready to sell all my guns and denounce them forever. Once I calmed down I became rational again. I start ASU this fall. If they will allow me to carry on campus, I will.
-Jake

Gun “control” has never worked. It has never reduced crime. The gun grabbers fail to address one simple, yet vital point: criminals don’t care about the law. My gosh, how did that nutball get those guns into that “gun free” zone on the VT campus? Duh. He didn’t give a damn about rules or laws.

I control my guns just fine. What I don’t control very well are my comment threads. Your comment went to moderation. Then I got up to get something. While my back was turned, Tiger either deleted your comment or spam blocked you. If you can’t make comments, change something.

So I uh….take it a vote for The HelMitt or RUdy is OUT, huh?

GOOD!

I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for Rudy or Mitt Romney. Either one of them would look downright desirable IF MY ONLY OTHER OPTION is Obama or Mrs. Bill… Right now, I’d say Fred Thompson has my interest!

WOW! That’s all we get from you?! Sheeesh.

Sorry, Carol. Politics is SO draining right now… the dems want us to lay down our arms (both personally and militarily) and the republicans seem to think that if we give illegals amnesty, they’ll vote conservative from now on… frickin morons!

Coolio! and thanks!

Even though Johnny Depp is a quasi-commie, he’s my guilty pleasure and I’m really looking forward to the movie! The first was the best… the most believable… the best scripted… but the last one was the most adventurous. A little sadistic, though. I’m looking forward to seeing what happens in this last one!

I think she’s got a good voice. Catchy piano in the song. Nice boobage too

I think she must be the bass player’s bird. Did you see how she looked at him for approval at the end of the song? He’s either coaching her or, well, maybe “couching” her…

Sorry, after ten minutes of waiting, I gave up…slooooooow download.

Hmm, sorry to hear that Gunny. I’ve listened to it on YouTube (I included the link in the post) and on 1 other site and it’s started right away. Is anyone else having the same problem (in fact, is there anyone else reading this blog)?

Perhaps Al Gore hasn’t paid for enough internet carbon offsets… particularly to Gunny’s area of the globe

Gunny, here’s a direct link to YouTube, try that to see if it’s faster:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7D8Y8nA7CI

Quaaality Band, she does have a bit of an epic voice

Dear Prophet Joe: The young lady would do better to stop attempting to emulate Sarah MacLaughlin and keep striving for her own style. Good song, though, and very nice melody. There’s a definite future for this band, at least in this Canadian’s opinion.

Veritas et Fidelis Semper