Wednesday, November 23, 2011

This Gun Guy Sure Sounds Crazy to Me....

Ok, for starters,I couldn't help but notice that Texas doesn't have its own Army.   So it is unclear if this guy is some sort of Texas secessionist wing nut.  Maybe  'Texas Army' is one of those terms like inanimate and disobedience that gun guys use that has a different meaning from the dictionary definitions of the terms.

The bold type is my added emphasis, to the original.

Note the Nut-case was armed, and taken away to the nearest psych ward.

At least if he was going to go about half naked, setting fires, he covered up the correct half.

Remember that idea of not trusting people who are armed NOT to be crazy? Does this ring a bell WHY that is?

From aol news:

Half Naked Man Drives Up Indiana War Memorial: Police Arrest Daniel Whitaker For Terroristic Mischief (PHOTOS)

Indiana War Memorial
First Posted: 11/23/11 11:18 AM ET Updated: 11/23/11 11:18 AM ET
State Police arrested an Indianapolis man on Tuesday after he allegedly drove his SUV up the steps of the Indiana War Memorial, wrapped himself in an American flag, and lit a small fire.
Officials identified the half-naked protester as 49-year-old Daniel Whitaker, WTHR reports.
Whitaker, who described himself to police as a member of the "Texas army," placed a large cross on the memorial, which he briefly stood before while wearing a metal helmet fashioned with a plume and carrying a bright blue staff, police said.
Police also said that once Whitaker drove up the memorial, he poured a canister of gasoline down the steps and lit a fire, WSBT reports.
A press release from Indiana State Police Capt. Dave Bursten describes the scene further:
After lighting the fire, Whitaker, who was wearing only a pair of khaki cargo shorts and draped in an American flag, began ranting how the world was safer 50 years ago when people could go outside without having to carry a gun. Ironically, Whitaker was armed with a loaded semi-automatic pistol.
Police officers managed to talk Whitaker into surrendering his weapon, "which resulted in Whitaker unloading the pistol and throwing it to the ground," the press release explains.
Fire authorities extinguished the fire before it could cause major damage, according to WISHTV.
Police arrested Whitaker for Terroristic Mischief, a Class 'C' Felony, and escorted him to Wishard Memorial Hospital for 72-hour psychiatric surveillance.


  1. He's been charged with a felony. He's been sent to a psyche ward. He won't be allowed to own firearms again. Problem solved.

  2. Give me a choice between KKKrazzeepants with or without a gun, I'm goin' for the unarmed whackaloon, every time.

  3. Let's hope so, Greg. You do know that often they plead it down and go on their merry way.

  4. GC wrote:

    "He won't be allowed to own firearms again. Problem solved."

    Really? He won't be allowed to own firearms again? How about if his state doesn't report to the NCIS a conviction or that he is dangerously crazy?

    What about those who push the reinstatement of 2nd amendments rights, no matter what it is this guy did?

    What about the private sales loophole?

    Careful Creg, you're going to start sounding pro-registration of firearms, pro gun checks, pro mandatory NCIS compliance.

    Or you know that your statement isn't true and don't care because admitting he can too easily own a gun again after this doesn't work well for YOUR side of this argument?

  5. Dog Gone,

    Fine, show me evidence that there are an abundance of names (not a handful) that should be reported to the NCIS, but aren't. And don't cite the Brady Bunch or the Violence Policy Center.

  6. GC wrote:
    Fine, show me evidence that there are an abundance of names (not a handful) that should be reported to the NCIS, but aren't. And don't cite the Brady Bunch or the Violence Policy Center.

    Not a problem. But this is stuff YOU should know, so if I'm doing YOUR homework for you, I expect YOU to do some of it as well.

    Before I post the multiple sources I have available, I'd like you to commit to researching these three things, and report them back here, with verifiable sources:

    1. how many names are reported to the NCIS by Arkansas, and who is dong that reporting;

    2. what was the funding amount provided in Arkansas to collect and report names

    3. how many names were in each category: felon, dangerously mentally ill, and drug user or misc. (like stalkers).

    I'll give you my research if you commit to doing yours and sharing it here. I'll even sweeten the offer. If you do this - easiest way, if you're not good at this kind of research is to turn it over to the reference librarian at your local public library - then, if you'd like to write about how you did the research and what you found, I'd be willing to post/ or cross post it here.


  7. Dog Gone,

    Why should I? I'm not the one arguing for a change; you are. I said that I'd be willing to go along with full reporting of convictions, but you're the one who wants this done.

  8. Btw, Greg - here's a hint to consider for data.

    I plan to use the most current information from the FBI on what they have in the data base at the moment, and how it changes.

    Nothing like going straight to the horse's mouth for accuracy! It is one of the things Laci and I have in common, a love of primary sources and a willing ness to do what is necessary to access them.

  9. In the interim Greg, this post resulted from the initial source prompting me to look at the participation in the data base in the first place:

    The one thing you should have noticed by now is that I like to research facts before making assertions.

    You should too.

    THAT is what was required of me and my fellow students by my teachers, K-12, that I don't see from you.

  10. Here's why - you are arguing that the status quo is sufficient. You are arguing against changes which would make regulation more stringent, and you appear to me at least to be Pro-NRA. The NRA does not want the data in the NICS data base to be retained by the FBI, and they DO want to see 2nd Amendment rights restored to people who have demonstrated they are dangerous.

    Further, you make statements which presume that there is adequate safety - as you did here - about people being disallowed from owning firearms that are inaccurate. And you oppose closing loopholes without even knowing what the problems are.

    I think before you expect to be taken seriously - as having an informed opinion - you should inform yourself.

    I'm willing. Let's see you do it as well.

  11. Dog Gone,

    You keep throwing the line at me that I don't know the facts. I know enough of them, and I've told you time and time again that the facts that you cite don't change my position.

    How about you name the number of deaths, injuries, and crazy incidents that you would find acceptable. I imagine that the number for you is zero. If that's the case, then the numbers don't matter to you, either. You're merely quoting numbers to impress people who can't put such things into perspective.

    I do note on Penigma's chart that gun hating states like Hawaii and Massachusetts reported no cases, while Texas and Virginia reported quite a few. Also, the link on that site goes to a Mayors Against Illegal Guns article that claims that many states report too few mental health cases. Too few, as measured how? Is there some formula or study that offers a predicted number of mentally ill people in a region? Oh, but I did hear a while ago that a quarter of the population has something wrong. That must be it.

    What you don't get is that I'm not impressed by your numbers. I don't base rights on data, and no amount of taunts or namecalling from you will change that.

    In addition, as I've said before, we who support gun rights have to take the position furthest from yours because this is a negotiation. Since you've shown no willingness to be reasonable, why should we? We have to make you fight for every restriction. If we just give in, you'll want even more in the next round.

    Go ahead, tell me how I can't think critically, even though I've once again shown you the basis of my thoughts.

  12. Shorter Greg Camp reply to dog gone:

    "No, you can't make me and shut-up, that's why."

    She give you a chance to demonstrate that you have an intellect and know how to use it and you refuse to rise to the challenge. Not a surprise.

  13. Just because I don't play her game is no indication that I lack intellect. Exactly the opposite, in fact. But then, apparently, Democommie can't understand the points that I made.

  14. Greg Camp:

    Just because you don't play her game indicates to me and others that you can't.

    You don't read past whatever you think justifies your own positions. You're a shallow thinker, bub.

    If you had the intellect and the genuine desire to know the truth you'd have stopped being a gunzloonz stooge a long time ago.

  15. Democommie,

    I actually wasn't asking for your opinion in my comment, but you offered it anyway. My opinion of you is that you can't imagine how an intelligent person could believe in gun rights and could own guns. That being the case, you wrongly insist that I must be stupid.

    Dog Gone,

    Let's say that the person in this article doesn't get reported to NCIS. He's been charged with a felony, and he shows signs of mental instability. He's been sent to a psyche ward and will likely be committed for a while, at least. That being the case, even if he isn't reported, he is unable to own a firearm legally under Federal law. If he does obtain one, that'll be an additional felony. If he ever gets caught with the weapon, he'll go down for a long while.

  16. Greg Camp:

    I didn't say you were stupid, I said you are a shallow thinker.

    If, if, if; allathem "if's". If he getz another gun anyway and kills some folks that'll just be one more