An 88-year-old Maryland man with a long history of ties to white supremacist groups is the suspect in Wednesday's fatal shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.James W. von Brunn served six years in prison for trying to make what he called a "legal, non-violent citizens arrest" of Federal Reserve Board members in 1981 -- a prison term he blamed on "a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys" and "a Jew judge," he said on his Web site, Holy Western Empire.
Von Brunn is a native of St. Louis, Missouri, and a 1943 graduate of Washington University there. According to his online biography, he served as a Navy officer in World War II and became an advertising artist and executive after the war.
But by the late 1970s, he had become a "hard-core neo-Nazi" and an associate of William Pierce -- the white supremacist leader whose 1978 book, "The Turner Diaries," is blamed for inspiring Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
I read about the shooting last night online, but this morning while having my coffee at 6:00 a.m., I heard it on the Italian radio news. I can only imagine the Italians just shake their heads in wonder at America, its guns and its violence. What kind of civilized country would put up with that? The answer is obvious, no civilized country, only the good old US of A.
The man was a convicted felon and an ex-con. Does that mean he wouldn't legally have been able to own a shotgun? If so, what can be done about these disobedient criminals who just won't get in line?
Here's my answer. We stop flooding the marketplace with weapons to the saturation point. We diminish the number of guns to the point that every homicidal maniac who wants a gun, just can't get one. Is that going to inconvenience the law abiding? You betcha. But I'm afraid that's just the price we're going to eventually have to pay for freedom.
Yes, I actually said "freedom." I reject all this nonsense about freedom being the ability to arm oneself. I reject it outright. The folks who feel they need to arm themselves are not free, as far as I can see. Real freedom would be a state in which there's such a diminishment of weapons in the public hands that it's once again safe to go outside. That would be freedom.
What's your opinion?
Your idea of "freedom" would make Orwell's Ministry of Truth proud. As Ralph W. Conner, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)-Chicago says:
ReplyDeleteBy definition, a slave is a person that is disarmed.
Your answer has failed everywhere else it has been tried. What makes you think it will work here?
ReplyDelete"Real freedom would be a state in which there's such a diminishment of weapons in the public hands that it's once again safe to go outside."
The UK said the same thing. Now people are free to be attacked on golf courses and be arrested for defending themselves. They're free to be arrested when caravans of gypsies squat on their property. They're free to wear stab-proof vests to schools because of the levels of violence in their 'free' society w/o firearms.
That's MikeB's 'freedom'.
Gee, where are your usual gun freaks today? :P
ReplyDeleteThey seem rather quiet today.
Oh wait, that's bad luck, never mind, forget I said it. They will be here LIKE CLOCKWORK to tell you this incident had nothing to do with guns.
PS--I thought of you today when I saw this bumper sticker: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, IDIOT DRIVERS TALKING ON CELL PHONES DO!
Yup, create more gun-free-zones like the one where the shooting took place. Seems to be working well.
ReplyDeleteProhibited person with an illegal gun in a city where it is illegal to possess one and used in an area that forbids guns.
That gun control idea really works, doesn't it?
So MikeB, I take it allowing comments calling firearm owners "usual gun freaks" is considered respectful disagreement and argument in accordance w/ your comment policy?
ReplyDeleteThe hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Only in your bizarre liberal utopia could the denial of constitutional rights and the denial of freedom of CHOICE be considereed "Freedom"
ReplyDeleteTry again Mike.
Also, how'd those gun laws work out?
Felon - He got a gun illegally anyway
D.C = gun free zone. You can't carry.
FWM - MikeB subscribes to the Do it again only HARDER line of reasoning.
ReplyDelete"We diminish the number of guns to the point that every homicidal maniac who wants a gun, just can't get one."
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
How do you propose to do this?
What is this magical number of guns you envision?
Are you willing to help carry out the plan or would it be for others to worry about?
One more thing. You seem to think that giving up freedom will increase freedom.
That's the same line of bull the British Redcoats tried to feed us.
Imagine the double 'luck' of the idiotic white racist: he got two birds with one shot-- killed a ni--er in a memorial to Jews. What a stroke of luck for that sorry ass!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it is time to ask the BIG question here in America: Is it time to suppress the so-called 'need' to own a gun for the greater safety of the citizens of our society?
I don't recall anyone (anyone but you) referring to a fundamental, Constitutional Right as a "need."
ReplyDeleteAlso, that "need" was already surpressed in DC, and yet it didn't stop this guy. What's your solution? Make all the laws he broke extra special illegal?
The strictest gun laws in the nation FAILED from a public safety standpoint. What's your solution, other than doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results? (hint, that's the definition of Insanity Muddy)
"Is it time to suppress the so-called 'need' to own a gun for the greater safety of the citizens of our society?"
ReplyDeleteHow do you plan to do this?
I wonder if it is time to ask the BIG question here in America: Is it time to suppress the so-called 'need' to own a gun for the greater safety of the citizens of our society?
ReplyDeleteHmm . . . that's a tough one. Let me think about it. Umm--no. Not now, not ever. Turns out it wasn't such a tough question, after all.
Anything else I can help you with?
MikeB in a perfect world, maybe. But in a perfect world, I would not be poorer than a church mouse, I would have a job that paid a living wage, that was safe, and provide some type of medical.
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world we would not need guns, and not one living creature in this world would have one, hell, they might not have ever been invented.
But we live in an imperfect world. Where guns are used for good and evil. I am not going to say that we have to take the good with the evil, but I will say that banning guns will not work. Just like a lock on a door will not stop a thief, if a person wants a gun, they will have it.
As for what that thing, which looked like a human being, got a gun illegally. You say gun availability, I ask how do you plan to lower it, without infringing on the rights/privileges of those of us who are law abiding?
I want to know, what is the magic number of guns? One, a million, zero?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, 02-17-1775
Of course I like this one as well, and Franklin gets the blame, but he did not write it. I do not know who did. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
And yet MudRake refuses to accept that fact that, even w/ millions more firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens, violence has NOT increased.
ReplyDeleteSo MR, do you reject the FBI stats out of hand like MikeB does?
By the way, what do you mean by "we"?
ReplyDeleteHere's my answer. We stop flooding the marketplace with weapons to the saturation point. We diminish the number of guns to the point that every homicidal maniac who wants a gun, just can't get one. Is that going to inconvenience the law abiding? You betcha. But I'm afraid that's just the price we're going to eventually have to pay for freedom.
You have apparently lived for the last 20 years in a place with gun laws draconian enough to suit even you--isn't that good enough for you? Do you have to impose that kind of tyranny on the people of the nation you left decades ago (a nation, need I remind you, in which public support for more restrictive gun laws is plummeting)? You don't see me bitching about Italy's gun laws, do you (I might make fun of them, but I'm not making an effort to have them changed)? You like draconian gun laws--fine--you got 'em. Just leave us alone.
In Chicago, two 'children' aged 20 and 21, both prohibited persons with a long history of violence and criminal activity, in a 'gun free zone', murdered a Chicago police officer.
ReplyDeleteThe 'fun fact' about this one? The alleged shooter had been in court just two weeks prior on his THIRD, yes THIRD, parole violation.
The judge let him go home.
Where does the fault lay? On the gun? Gun owners? The Judge for letting a known criminal walk? The shooter and his accomplice?
Another Jew Hater:
ReplyDeleteIn an exclusive interview at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference, Wright told the Daily Press that he has not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, and he implied that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him.
"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright said. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wright_0610jun10,0,7603283.story
Think he preaches this from the pulpit?
Jew haters?
ReplyDeleteOh, you mean like Obama's spirtual adviser?
"Reverend Jeremiah Wright raised eyebrows yet again when he said he was no longer able to speak to President Obama because "them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me." On Sirius Radio's "Make it Plain with Mark Thompson" Thursday, he clarified.
"Let me just say, like Hillary, I misspoke. Let me just say Zionists," Wright said, before going on to delineate the difference between them and "responsible Jewish persons." He went on to discuss the Israeli government and the power of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. government, saying he was basing his words on the work of Jewish historian Marc Ellis."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/jeremiah-wright-on-jews-a_n_214481.html
The irony of this whole thing is even though MikeB wants to argue for diminishing guns, he completely leaves out the fact the shooter was stopped by someone with a gun.
ReplyDeleteThat's the greatest flaw of the gun control movement. Even in their ideal society, someone still has to be armed to keep the peace. It's essentially an admission of failure on their part.
Daisy, Thanks for thinking of me when you saw that bumper sticker. Your question about where are all then gun guys reminded me of The Field of Dreams. In this case it would be, "If you write it, they will come."
ReplyDeleteYeah, gun free zones and gun restrictions like DC's might work if Virginia weren't right across the river. On the other hand, with the number of guns at an all time high, as you guys often point out, he probably didn't have to go that far.
ReplyDeleteKaveman asks, "How do you propose to do this?
What is this magical number of guns you envision?"
Let's have background checks on EVERY gun transaction. Then let's have gun registration, which would work hand in hand with the background checks. Let's shape up the wording of that Assault Weapons Ban and re-enact it. Maybe there are a couple other things too at the level of production and wholesale. By these means we could shoot for a 50% decrease of the total number and thereby expect improvement.
Let's look at what I was questioning...
ReplyDelete""We diminish the number of guns to the point that every homicidal maniac who wants a gun, just can't get one."
Questions:
How do you propose to do this?
What is this magical number of guns you envision?"
Background checks won't diminsh the number of guns held by civilians. Registration won't diminish the number of guns held by civilians. The AWB with a grandfather clause won't diminish the number of guns held by civilians.
The only way to reach your stated goal of diminishing the number of guns from 300 million to 150 million is to confiscate 50% of the guns and halt all future sales.
Am I wrong in my assesment?
How is gun registration going to work when there are already 250 million guns out and about?
ReplyDeleteIt would probably take well over 100 years for all of the unregistered guns to fall apart and be replaced by registered guns.
The same goes for assault weapons. There are so many out there already that trying to ban them would be an act of futility.
"if Virginia weren't right across the river. "
ReplyDeleteAnd MD is on the other side. Guess where an equal amount of criminals get their guns?
Guess which state has very strict ownership requirements?
"How is gun registration going to work when there are already 250 million guns out and about?"
ReplyDeleteSimple, it's the thing Anti's wont own up to. Once you register them you marginalize gun ownership and then start confiscations.
There's a reason registration has ALWAYS been a precursor to confiscation throughout all of history.
So Mike, who's going to confiscate our guns to get that 50% decrease? How will they attempt to do it? (with guns I bet, oh the irony)
Oh, and by the way. Molon Labe.
Mike W., Thanks for Molon Labe. I looked it up. I'll say this, you guys are full of surprises. I always thought it was weird the way some of you refer to 18th century America, as if it pertained to today's society, but this Molon Labe is even better.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I really appreciate your comments when they're devoid of personal attacks and nastiness. I mean that.
On the question of how would registration and background checks bring the total number down, I admit that's a problem.
ReplyDeleteAt this point in my development, I can honestly say gun confiscation is not something I would condone. I used to say that about gun bans, but now I think I might agree to some of them, but door-to-door confiscation is as abhorrent to me as it is to some of you.
It would probably take too long for attrition to play a role in diminishment, so for now I have to say I'm a bit stumped on this one.
"It would probably take too long for attrition to play a role in diminishment, so for now I have to say I'm a bit stumped on this one."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you realize that, many people can not.
I have a rifle which was made in 1912 and is pristine. I have another made in 1891 which is pritine.
When you're talking about things made out of steel, and they're well cared for, they can last for a very very long time.
I bought a video which shows the firing of an old "hook gun" more than 500 years old.
The recipe for gun powder is hundreds of years older than that.
A gun is simply a hollow tube open on one end and closed on the other.
It is unforunate that the likes of this man kind can assemble and spur hate messages.
ReplyDelete"and we are not saved..."