50 Years After JFK, Crazy People Can Still Get Guns

We got past the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination with a minimal amount of fake emotion, chin-stroking, and blame-shifting.

The day's worst cartoon was probably this one, lamenting that crazy people can still get guns. 

Yeah, they can.  And that's why I'm keeping mine. 

 

Why Guns Make You Safer

I'm shamelessly ripping this off from the Lew Rockwell website for future reference.   
Written by Michael Snyder.  It's a brilliant collection of links about gun control. 

18 Little-Know Facts That Prove Guns Make Us Safer

#1 Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.

#2 A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policydiscovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.

#3 The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.

#4 Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws…

With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.

#5 The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people

#6 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011.  During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000.

#7 Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.

#8 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.

#9 The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011.

#10 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States.  In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK.  In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year.  Do we really want to be more like the UK?

#11 The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

#12 The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

#13 The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.

#14 The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

#15 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.
 

#16 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States.  So has this reduced crime?  Of course not.  As I wrote about recently, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“.  If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.

#17 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries.

#18 According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century.  The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered.

Good stuff. Go here to read Snyder's intro and conclusion. 

Where would you prefer to live?

The Ultimate Libertarian Sex Fantasy !!!

This is the ultimate Libertarian sex fantasy, compliments of the great Daniel J. Mitchell of the International Liberty website:

On the way home (an extreme libertarian) stopped at the gas station where a drop-dead gorgeous blonde was filling up her car at the next pump.

She looked at the ammo in the back of his pickup truck and said in a very sexy voice, “I’m a big believer in barter. Would you be interested in trading sex for ammo?”

He thought a few seconds and asked, “What kinda ammo ya got?”

On Obama's unnecessary trip to Chicago

Barack Obama is going to Chicago to talk about ending the gun violence.  Chicago has one of the nation's highest gun-crime rates.

This trip isn't necessary.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.  They already have the signs in place.  Most of the potential victims are already disarmed.  

Obama shoots clay pigeons. Hilarity ensues.

The White House (i.e., "you") paid to have some pics put on the official WH website.  Pics of Obama shooting skeet.

They were accompanied with a schoolmarmish warning that the pics "may not be manipulated in any way".

Hilarity followed shortly afterwards.

Go here for other funnies.

They Passed A Law !!

Damn.....

Looks like the NRA has settled on a strategy....

Different ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment

I wrote this a couple of years ago.  Figured that today would be a good time for a re-post. 

There's usually a lot of noise and confusion surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the section in our Bill Of Rights which, in my opinion, gives me the right to own guns. 

The amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


There it is, sitting in the second seat of the bus, with all the other restrictions on government power. 
Every other bullet point in the Bill Of Rights is designed to limit the power of government in relation to the governed, and we drift off into silliness when we try to see Amendment #2 through any other lens.   The 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights. 

Unfortunately, after years of court cases brought by the Nanny State, this is how many of us now see the original intent of the amendment:

Since our government needs an army to preserve freedom and ward off foreign invaders, we grudgingly admit that members of our primitive Citizen Militias should be allowed to own weapons. 

And since we no longer have a Citizen Militia that has to get out of bed in the middle of the night to fight the Redcoats, we no longer have a need for guns in our homes.  Or so they would have us believe. 

The guys who composed the Bill Of Rights wanted to put some severe limits on government power.  They knew that if left unchecked, without ironclad protections, the governing class would try to restrict freedom.  I don't understand the mindset of nannies and busybodies, but the last 10 years have seen an alarming rise in those pesky species of political varmints.   Most libertarians share that concern with The Founders.  Mostly because they believe that the 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights !!

Go here and browse through the complete Bill Of Rights.  Look at how they're worded.  Many of them have a little disclaimer that grudgingly admit that, dammit, some level of government is necessary.  But look at the phrases used:

....but in a manner prescribed by law.
....but upon probable cause....
....unless on a presenment or indictment....
....shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In these amendments, The Founders are saying that because of the necessary evils of courts, trials, responses to emergencies, and the occasional need to search a house, there are going to be certain rules in place to ensure that government doesn't go too far. 

In Amendment #2, The Founders agree that the government needs a militia.  The militia is a necessary evil, no more, no less. 
But because the government gets to have a militia, and government always needs to be held in check, guess what?  Well, the right of everyone else to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
Here's an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that I believe is much closer to the original intent:

Since a government militia is an unfortunate necessity, and we have a distrust of government in all its forms, the citizens who are not members of the militia have a duty to keep and bear arms.  Just in case the government's militia starts getting uppity. 

If you read that version in the context of the other nine government restraints in the Bill Of Rights, the wording makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? 

The 2nd Amendment cartoon came from here. 

The Case For More Guns

I read this in The Atlantic Monthly (hardly a right-wing Tea Party rag) a few days before the shooting in Connecticut. 
It's easily the most reasonable piece I've seen on the subject of guns in America.  Jeffery Goldberg is the author. 

Go here.  Kinda long, but worth it.

Here are the final paragraphs.....

But even some moderate gun-control activists, such as Dan Gross, have trouble accepting that guns in private hands can work effectively to counteract violence. When I asked him the question I posed to Stephen Barton and Tom Mauser—would you, at a moment when a stranger is shooting at you, prefer to have a gun, or not?—he answered by saying, “This is the conversation the gun lobby wants you to be having.” He pointed out some of the obvious flaws in concealed-carry laws, such as too-lax training standards and too much discretionary power on the part of local law-enforcement officials. He did say that if concealed-carry laws required background checks and training similar to what police recruits undergo, he would be slower to raise objections. But then he added: “In a fundamental way, isn’t this a question about the kind of society we want to live in?” Do we want to live in one “in which the answer to violence is more violence, where the answer to guns is more guns?”

What Gross won’t acknowledge is that in a nation of nearly 300 million guns, his question is irrelevant.

Guess who manufactured the planes and helicopters for the Libyan Air Force

Here's a partial list of the aircraft that Gaddafi/Qaddafi/Khadafi is using to train pilots, transport soldiers, and move equipment in his campaign against the Libyan people.  I found it on Wikipedia, not the most reliable of sources, but it seems to check out. 
Make and model is on the left, country of origin is in the center, followed by purpose, and then quantity on hand. 

Gulfstream II

USA

Light transport

1

Lockheed C-130H Hercules

USA

Heavy transport

10

 

Bell 206 JetRanger

USA

Training helicopter

4

Bell 202 Twin Huey

USA

Light transport helicopter

2

Boeing CH-47 Chinook

USA

Heavy transport helicopter

8

I know that we're trying to Save And Create Jobs in the military/industrial complex, but....

Did the Libyan dictator have to pass a background check before he purchased these? 

Do we sell these planes and helicopters to Middle Eastern nutcases knowing full well that we would eventually be sending our own soldiers and pilots to fight against them? 

Some of these helicopters went to Italy first.  Then they wound up in Libya.  Should Italy take responsibility for enforcing the much-discussed no-fly zone over Libya?  Especially since we're kinda busy elsewhere? 

Manufacturing aircraft to sell to our enemies so we can boost our economy by blowing them up later....Is that a sustainable economic model?

Are the manufacturers of these aircraft not happier than old hogs in new slop, knowing that they might be supplying equipment to both sides in yet another conflict? 

Should we not put some restrictions on this type of sale before we worry too much about forcing me to have a permit for a handgun? 

The map of the Military/Industrial complex came from here. 

A moment of nostalgia, inspired by the deaths of 4000 blackbirds in Bebe Arkansas

From MSNBC:

BEEBE, Ark. — Preliminary autopsies on 17 of the up to 5,000 blackbirds that fell on this town indicate they died of blunt trauma to their organs, the state's top veterinarian told NBC News on Monday.

Their stomachs were empty, which rules out poison, Dr. George Badley said, and they died in midair, not on impact with the ground.
That evidence, and the fact that the red-winged blackbirds fly in close flocks, suggests they suffered some massive midair collision, he added. That lends weight to theories that they were startled by something.
Earlier Monday, the estimated number of dead birds was raised to between 4,000 and 5,000, up sharply from the initial estimate of 1,000.
Keith Stephens, a spokesman for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, provided the new numbers.

I once put that many blackbirds on the ground, but it took about 3 or 4 months.  Read no further if you are easily disturbed. 
I grew up on a rice farm in Mississippi.  Our house was in the middle of a pecan orchard.  There were 50 or 60 pecan trees in the fields around the house. 

(As residents of Fort Worth know, blackbirds and grackles travel in massive flocks.  They'll color the sky black.  When they select a place to roost in their daily migration, they leave behind a massive pile of blackbird droppings.  Downtown Fort Worth's efforts to get rid of them were comical.  They used scary rubber owls, air canons, plastic snakes in the trees, and I forget what else.  One thing they didn't do?  They didn't hire me to shoot them.  But I digress....)

One year when I was about 12 years old, the largest flock of blackbirds I've ever seen decided to roost in our pecan orchard.  They would fly in at about 2:00 in the afternoon and leave around 7:00.  Sometimes you couldn't see the branches on the pecan trees. 
My father estimated that they ate about 20 acres of rice.  (At the time, a good rice yield was 90 bushels per acre, and we got around $8.00 per bushel.  Do the math.) 
I had a 20-gauge single-shot, a beloved shotgun that I purchased with my own money in the 4th grade.
My father gave me an allotment of one box of shotguns shells per day....

....and turned me loose in the pecan orchard.  That was the best job I've ever had. 

As long as he didn't need me on a tractor, every day was a blackbird hunt. 
I could aim in the general direction of a tree, and put blackbirds on the ground.  My record number was 23 with one shot. 
Jack and Jim, our two sorta Border Collies, started following me into the orchard to gorge themselves on blackbirds.  They were competitive types who survived on leftovers and scraps, and they didn't bother with chewing.  They just ate and ate and ate.  Watching them swallow blackbirds was like watching Chris Christie swallow an aspirin. 
Eventually the cats (whose name was Legion, for they were many) started following me into the orchard.  I'd give almost anything for a picture of me, the dogs, and the cats making our trek into the killing fields.  We were a team.   
The birds eventually figured out the range of my Western Auto .20 gauge, and it became a bit more difficult to kill quite so many birds per shot.  Still, it was a rare shotgun shell that didn't send 8 or 10 of them to blackbird hell. 
25 shotgun shells per day times 12 dead blackbirds per shell times 3 or 4 months. 
You do the math. 

The grossest part, even by my jaded North Mississippi standards, was when Jack and Jim made it back to the house. 
They would recline in the driveway, and you could see wounded and unchewed blackbirds moving around inside their ribcages. 

I don't know or care what killed 4,000 blackbirds in Bebe Arkansas, but I'm sure the blackbird population will survive. 
They've made it through worse things. 

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership

Go here to marvel at the website of "Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership"

The site refers you to the chart I've included below.  Here's some info on where these guys are coming from:

Why must all decent non-violent people fight against "gun control"? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.

People frequently ask why we are so dedicated to our cause? This book answers that question by collecting the key facts and arguments in one place.

People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the new book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament.

The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.

Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.

What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." It's the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.

Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.

Yeah.  See below. 

The Genocide Chart © JPFO.org 2002
Government	Dates	Targets	Civilians Killed	"Gun Control" Laws	Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme
Ottoman Turkey	1915-1917	Armenians (mostly Christians)	1-1.5 million	Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866 & 1911 Proclamation, 1915	• Permits required •Government list of owners •Ban on possession
Soviet Union	1929-1945	Political opponents; farming communities	20 million	Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926	•Licensing of owners •Ban on possession •Severe penalties
Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe	1933-1945	Political opponents; Jews; Gypsies; critics; "examples"	20 million	Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928 Weapon Law, March 18, 1938 Regulations against Jews, 1938	•Registration & Licensing •Stricter handgun laws •Ban on possession
China, Nationalist	1927-1949	Political opponents; army conscripts; others	10 million	Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914 Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935	•Government permit system •Ban on private ownership
China, Red	1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976	Political opponents; Rural populations Enemies of the state	20-35 million	Act of Feb. 20, 1951 Act of Oct. 22, 1957	•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program •Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"
Guatemala	1960-1981	Mayans & other Indians; political enemies	100,000- 200,000	Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932 Decree 386, 1947 Decree 283, 1964	•Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees •Prohibit carrying guns •Bans on guns, sharp tools •Confiscation powers
Uganda	1971-1979	Christians Political enemies	300,000	Firearms Ordinance, 1955 Firearms Act, 1970	•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions •Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)	1975-1979	Educated Persons; Political enemies	2 million	Art. 322-328, Penal Code Royal Ordinance 55, 1938	•Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions •Photo ID with fingerprints •License inspected quarterly
Rwanda	1994	Tutsi people	800,000	Decree-Law No. 12, 1979	•Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers

Governments killed around 200 million of their own people in the previous century.  Never forget that.  Please. 

Nyquil, Guns, and Wal-Mart

My friend Harper at Passed Up Strange, is getting ready for a holiday filled with drugs and guns and other weapons. 

She also has weighed in on Janet Napolitano's ghastly visage appearing on TV screens at Wal-Mart. 

Worth reading every day, that Harper.  Nyquil.  Guns.  Wal-Mart.  The three things that make life worthwhile. 

How to interpret the 2nd Amendment

There's usually a lot of noise and confusion surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the section in our Bill Of Rights which, in my opinion, gives me the right to own guns. 

The amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


There it is, sitting in the second seat of the bus, with all the other restrictions on government power. 
Every other bullet point in the Bill Of Rights is designed to limit the power of government in relation to the governed, and we drift off into silliness when we try to see Amendment #2 through any other lens.   The 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights. 

Unfortunately, after years of court cases brought by the Nanny State, this is how many of us now see the original intent of the amendment:

Since our government needs an army to preserve freedom and ward off foreign invaders, we grudgingly admit that members of our primitive Citizen Militias should be allowed to own weapons. 

And since we no longer have a Citizen Militia that has to get out of bed in the middle of the night to fight the Redcoats, we no longer have a need for guns in our homes.  Or so they would have us believe. 

The guys who composed the Bill Of Rights wanted to put some severe limits on government power.  They knew that if left unchecked, without ironclad protections, the governing class would try to restrict freedom.  I don't understand the mindset of nannies and busybodies, but the last 10 years have seen an alarming rise in those pesky species of political varmints.   Most libertarians share that concern with The Founders.  Mostly because they believe that the 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights !!

Go here and browse through the complete Bill Of Rights.  Look at how they're worded.  Many of them have a little disclaimer that grudgingly admit that, dammit, some level of government is necessary.  But look at the phrases used:

....but in a manner prescribed by law.
....but upon probable cause....
....unless on a presenment or indictment....
....shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In these amendments, The Founders are saying that because of the necessary evils of courts, trials, responses to emergencies, and the occasional need to search a house, there are going to be certain rules in place to ensure that government doesn't go too far. 

In Amendment #2, The Founders agree that the government needs a militia.  The militia is a necessary evil, no more, no less. 
But because the government gets to have a militia, and government always needs to be held in check, guess what?  Well, the right of everyone else to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
Here's an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that I believe is much closer to the original intent:

Since a government militia is an unfortunate necessity, and we have a distrust of government in all its forms, the citizens who are not members of the militia have a duty to keep and bear arms.  Just in case the government's militia starts getting uppity. 

If you read that version in the context of the other nine government restraints in the Bill Of Rights, the wording makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? 

The 2nd Amendment cartoon came from here. 

In praise of good neighbors. Ed in particular.

I love my neighborhood, and have great neighbors. 
We occasionally have some badness drifting up from a nearby high-crime region, though. 

My truck has been broken into something like 3 times in 10 years.  The police can always be relied on to say something like "Doh !"

A few nights ago, one of my neighbors heard somebody messing around with his pickup, which was parked out on the street.  He looked outside, and yep, somebody was messing with his truck.  Mr. Ed, the truck-owner, is a calm, older black gentleman, and one of the best folks I know.  Age Morgan Freeman by about 20 more years, shave his head, and you've got Mr. Ed.

Mr. Ed calmly got his pistol, went outside, and took a shot at the son of a bitch. 

He missed.  Mr. Ed apparently had all the appropriate permits that are required for someone to shoot at truck thieves, and as far as I know he isn't in any trouble with the law. 

That happened four or five nights ago.  I sleep like a baby, knowing that Mr. Ed is out there, and a restless sleeper. 

Barack Obama is going to raise taxes so he can keep spending.  No one has been able to plug the hole in the Gulf.  Our soldiers are still getting shot in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Nancy Pelosi is Speaker Of The House. 

But I don't think we have to worry about that guy breaking into any more trucks. 

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away ! 

Chicago's Victim Disarmament Laws once again achieve their purpose. 25 in 30.

Chicago's Victim Disarmament Laws are proving to be highly effective.  Here's ABC News, from a link provided by NewsAlert:

May 30, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- It has been a violent weekend in Chicago: in a 30 hour period, 25 people were shot, and one man died from his injuries.

The fatal shooting happened early Sunday in the 5100-block of S. Laflin.
Darius Murphy, 19, died after he was shot in the head.
Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis said nearly half of the shootings appear to be gang-related.
He said there are no suspects in any of the cases.

Also from NewsAlert....You can go here to learn why Chicago Alderman Fred Rotti was so enthusiastic about preventing citizens from defending themselves. 

The sign came from here. If you hit the link, check out his "celebrate diversity" sign. 

Why America is great

Note to friends in Britain, Israel, Australia and Korea....
I bet you folks don't have any political ads like this one.



The only way to improve on this would be for Dale to hop on his horse and ride off into the sunset while shootin' varmints.

Anthony Bourdain at Ted Nugent's ranch

Here's TV chef Anthony Bourdain at Ted Nugent's ranch near Waco, Texas, cooking meat over an open flame and shooting some automatic weapons.



THIS is why Texas is great.

California Detective says that "open carry" supporters should be shot

A couple of readers sent me this after my recent post about Starbucks being safer than Fort Hood.....
Ever notice how much some government entities hate competitors?  Like, the U.S. Post Office is about to go broke, but won't allow anyone else to carry 1st class mail?  Remember when FDR wouldn't allow citizens to own gold, because they would've abandoned the dollar?  Or, in the case of guns.....

Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that "open carry" supporters should be shot.

I understand why Detective Tuason would be threatened by "open carry" advocates.  After all, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. 


East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend's status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like "Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto" and not just in "hoity toity" cities.

"Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied. "He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"

That's a picture of a suspect in a not-quite-prone position. 
Let's get one thing straight here.  Which would you rather have with you if you had to live in Oakland, Richmond, or East Palo Alto?  A pistol, or Detective Tuason's cell phone number? 

Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California's Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.

"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!" -- referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.

Sigh.....These are our employees.  How much time off would this clown get if we started acting like employers?  I suspect it would be more than two weeks. 

Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason's termination.

John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the Facebook thread confirmed gun owners' worst fears.

As of Sunday afternoon, it has 1,900 members.  Hit the link.  But that's nothing to quibble over. 

"Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America's gun owners," Taylor told FoxNews.com. "It's an affront."

What we have here is a free speech vs 2nd Amendment vs freedom of contract issue.  Detective Tuason should have the right to say what he wants to say about shooting citizens.  I say, let him say whatever he wants.  The 2nd Amendment states that we can keep and bear arms without having to worry about Det. Tuason shooting us.  And "freedom of contract" implies that the unfortunate citizens of whichever city Tuason works for should be able to fire his butt back into the private sector whenever they please. 
I see no reason why this can't be resolved quickly. 
 
Go here for a screen shot of the conversation.  The picture of the Glock in a not-quite open carry situation came from Free Market Fairy Tales.