Well, seems Cox will be taking a well-deserved hiatus from talkin' tough 'bout guns and the occasional wife-choking.
Some choice excerpts from the link:
Before he was sentenced, Cox broke down several times, grabbing tissues and fighting back tears.Fighting back tears? Grabbing for tissues? Yep, sounds like a gunloon.
"I put myself here, with my own words," he said before pausing. "And I feel horrible about that."
Cox came to the attention of the FBI in late 2009 after speeches in Montana that claimed the Fairbanks militia had 3,500 members and was armed with mines and other military weapons. But the group only had about a dozen members and, as Bryan noted, never trained for military duty.
A psychological exam ordered by Cox's new attorney, Peter Camiel of Seattle, after he was convicted showed Cox suffered from several paranoid disorders."I put a lot of people in fear by the things that I said," Cox told the court Tuesday. "Some of the crazy stuff that was coming out of my mouth, I see that, and I sounded horrible.Paranoid. Check. Scared. Check. Gunloon. Check.
"I couldn't have sounded any worse if I tried," he said. "The more scared I got, the crazier the stuff. I wasn't thinking, I was panicking."
At the end of the trial in June, Bryan said he wrote down observations about Cox, which included: paranoia, grandiosity, narcissism, egocentricity and pathological lying.Hmmm...sounds like just about every gunloon.
Go to any gunloon blog or message board and you'll find no shortage of internet tough guys talking about how they're going to take on the US military, law enforcement and Govt officials. But when the rubber meets the road, they'll be sobbing and asking for tissues.
potential mass shooting at a school stopped by someone with a gun........
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tricities.com/news/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.html
You know what else stops mass shootings at schools?
DeleteBetter gun regulation that keeps these people from having guns in the first place. That way we could be law abiding, instead of gun toting barbarians.
People who live in countries with far far fewer guns don't even have attempted mass school shootings - a better way to handle the problem then hoping that someone will stop a shooting because they have a gun.
There was an armed police officer at Columbine, aided by a second armed officer; it did nothing to either stop or deter that school shooting.
Virginia Tech had their own armed police force spread throughout campus; that didn't stop anything.
The Fort Hood shooting happened at a military base full of trained soldiers and guns....and that didn't stop Nidal Hasan.
NOT having guns in the first place would have stopped all of those occurrences, it would have definitively prevented them, as well as all the other murder suicides, mass shootings, single suicides, accidents, child killings, law officer shootings, etc.
You are the problem, not the solution.
Now who's repeating lies and misdirections? The "guards" at Columbine were outside, not inside. A college campus is a large spread of land, and colleges generally have a small force of officers. On military bases, weapons are regulated, and service personnel are barred from carrying, unless as a part of their duties.
DeleteGunsucks think that guns solve problems. They do not. Guns cause paranoia and problems.
DeleteGunsuck Greg: and when armed guards are at schools they will always be somewhere, and they will always not be other places. Many mass murderers are pretty smart and plan ahead. They can easily determine where something is.
DeleteI am not interested in the gunsuck paradise where every person is carrying. Gunsucks love killing people and shooting stuff, and this doubtless makes your panties moist. But normal people who are not addicted to killing do not like this idea.
As soon as Obama sends his kids to a school that doesn't have 11 armed security personnel plus armed Secret Service agents protecting them 24/7 you might have an argument, until then...
Deleteorlin sellers
Anonymous,
DeleteDid you just give away the farm by admitting that mass shooters will plan ahead and pick a place without armed opposition? I think you did.
Anonymous, where do you get the idea that I want to kill anyone? I do enjoy shooting soda bottles and other such targets, but I've never shot at, aimed at, or threatened another human being. Your ideas about my side are bizarre and strike me as projection.
DeleteAlso, Dog Gone, gun control didn't stop that wacko in Norway.
DeleteThe point that Dog Gone made is perfectly valid although you don't like to admit it. Arming more good guys is not the solution. It would cause more problems that it cures, especially with the low standards we have for gun ownership. But you make it even worse when you insist on that non-solution INSTEAD of doing something about gun availability to the unfit and dangerous.
DeleteDog Gone's premises are faulty or false. No valid answer can come from those.
DeleteMikeb is so accomodating that he allows trolls to post articles of their own. How decent of him.
ReplyDeleteHahahahaha, now Jadegold is a troll. He has arrived.
DeleteHe achieved that status long ago. Do a little reading about his pseudonym on Google.
DeleteJade,
ReplyDeleteYou said that our side was afraid of debate, but I don't see any debate here, just a series of insults and generalizations from one extreme example. Bad form, sir; bad form.
C'mon, T., don't tell us you can't find something to debate there. You?
DeleteThis wasn't presented as a debate, it was presented as an implication that because this guy was a gun owner and was also a paranoid nut job, all gun owners are such.
DeleteAs for things to debate, there's not much to debate about Mr. Cox--he seems to be just what Jade described him to be.
If Jade wants to argue that the rest of us are paranoid for X, Y, or Z reasons, I'll debate him, but if he's just going to generalize and insult, I see no reason to engage him.
Bullshit on that. You gunsucks do not want debate. Debate entails the notion that you might actually do something of a compromise. I have never heard a gunsuck admit a single change in gun laws to make them safer. Gun registration to eliminate gun running, restrictions on sales to 1 / month, increase in the penalties for felonious use of a gun for the owner (if your kid shoots up the school with your gun, you are liable), insurance rules which put the cost of gun incidents onto gun owners, tort law changes which makes gun usage actionable (you shoot me, I get your house), etc.
DeleteI'll debate you. But if we're going to debate, let's have some rules:
Delete1. Insults are not allowed.
2. Each side must respond to what the other said before making new statements.
Interested?
Anon,
DeleteI have, on this very blog, suggested better liability rules that would require people who misuse guns or use them recklessly pay for all expenses incurred by their victim, and that if they were "judgment proof" that they be forced to work off the debt.
As for the other suggestions, I've presented my arguments against several of those because I don't think they'll work either at all, or simply as proposed.
Guns cause paranoia, stupidity and idiocy. When you get a gun, you no longer need to think. You merely pull out the gun and let the gun logic work for you. Guns make people stupid. When liberals buy guns, they soon become confused by gun logic, and lose their intellect and make libertarian comments.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll bite, what are libertarian comments?
Deleteorlin sellers
Anonymous here demostrates his lack of ability to form coherent sentences or thoughts.
DeleteAnother pathetic attempt to paint an entire genre based on statistical anomalies.
ReplyDelete