[UPDATE 5:10 p.m.] Shooting on Twin Trees Road Near Benbow; One in Custody

Shooting markers bullets feature icon

Background photo a stock image by Oliver Cory

One man has been shot and another detained during after an ongoing civil dispute erupted into violence about 3:50 p.m. in the 400 300 block of Twin Trees Road near Benbow.

“The shooting just occurred,” Samantha Karges of the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office confirmed. “A [male] suspect has been detained. Medical is still responding.”

Karges said, “The victim is a male unknown condition. The two had been part of an ongoing civil issue prior to this.”

Scanner traffic indicates that the victim has at least one injury to the upper right shoulder.

UPDATE 4:19 p.m.: The victim is being taken to the hospital.

UPDATE 4:27 p.m.: The Sheriff’s Office tweeted at 4:15 p.m., “[S]uspect detained. Victim reportedly alert, receiving medical attention.”

UPDATE 5:10 p.m.: The Sheriff’s Office posted via Facebook,

 

The suspect is being taken away in cuffs.

The suspect is being taken away in cuffs. [Photo from the HCSO]

At about 3:50 p.m. HCSO deputies were dispatched to a residence on the 300 block of Twin Trees Rd. near Benbow for the report of a shooting that has just occurred. Deputies located a male victim with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. Victim was transported via ambulance to a local hospital. Suspect was located and detained nearby.Shooting is believed to be the result of an ongoing civil issue between the two men, which escalated this afternoon into violence.

UPDATE Thursday: Benbow Man Charged With Attempted Homicide After Shooting Yesterday

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

137 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Liz
Guest
Liz
5 years ago

Same road the two girls were reported missing and found earlier this month.

Guest
Guest
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  Liz

Maybe it was civil dispute over road repairs? Just a guess.

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  Guest

No it was a civil dispute over a squatter refusing to leave somebody else’s property. The police were contacted days prior to the shooting and refused to do anything about the situation…

I believe it
Guest
I believe it
5 years ago
Reply to  THC

Bingo

Willie Caso-Mayhem
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  Liz

🕯Its gaining a reputation. 😁

Guest
Guest
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  Liz

This has nothing to do with those little girls!

Me
Guest
Me
5 years ago
Reply to  Liz

Wait a min isn’t that the same address as the girls that got lost
I said the same .hmm lots of strange happenings?

LostCoastEMP
Guest
LostCoastEMP
5 years ago
Reply to  Me

The ol shoulder shot. Nice! Above the clavicle bone, 3” from the neck….. it will get there attention every time without a life threatening wound.

Me
Guest
Me
5 years ago
Reply to  Liz

Exactly

Janet
Guest
Janet
5 years ago

Sounds like the same general area where Chip Nunemaker shot Tim Mooney years ago.

Disturbed
Guest
Disturbed
5 years ago
Reply to  Janet

East Branch was the road I believe that Chip shot Tim. My dad was hauling logs for Chip at the time. Chip shot him twice.

Ben
Guest
Ben
5 years ago
Reply to  Janet

Yup… Many years ago.. That house slid down the hill..

chairokee
Guest
chairokee
5 years ago

The fuzz needs to get the shades off, a lot of law enforcement wear sun glasses when speaking with folks , what are they hiding from, dont want ya to see their scared? very disrespectful.

Easyflow
Guest
Easyflow
5 years ago
Reply to  chairokee

One of the most ridiculous comments I’ve ever read.

Bozo
Guest
Bozo
5 years ago
Reply to  Easyflow

Unfortunately, not really.

I heard that a number of cops wear dark sunglasses so you can’t see where their eyes are looking.
You think they are talking to you, but they are looking elsewhere around the scene.
Ok, that was a nice story… but I couldn’t believe it until I actually saw it.

I ran into a F/S cop with dark glasses so you couldn’t see his eyes… he was talking to a group of us,
then he turned his head, and I saw he actually had some dark plastic stick-on-reflective film on his glasses.

Yup.

Thirdeye
Guest
Thirdeye
5 years ago
Reply to  Easyflow

There was one time I had to take law enforcement training as a Forest Service employee, and one of the themes was that it was imperative to establish quick working relationships with people. The instructor mentioned that keeping shades on was one thing that impeded that process. But if you’re responding to a violent crime and the cop’s working relationship with someone consists of placing them under arrest, it’s probably not that big a deal.

Rudy Roberts
Guest
Rudy Roberts
5 years ago
Reply to  chairokee

Respect? Don’t speak of things you know nothing about.

chairokee
Guest
chairokee
5 years ago
Reply to  Rudy Roberts

rudy,i may have dealt with folks in a different environment then you can imagine, [edit]

cristal
Guest
cristal
5 years ago
Reply to  chairokee

Dilated pupils?

some people children
Guest
some people children
5 years ago
Reply to  cristal

more like pin eyed

LostCoastEMP
Guest
LostCoastEMP
5 years ago
Reply to  chairokee

Try standing above them when there are talking to you,,, they hate that too. Leaving sunglasses on gives u a tactical advantage

Really?
Guest
Really?
5 years ago
Reply to  chairokee

hmm….how about if they are prescription? I guess anyone who wheres prescription sunglasses should be suspect. Did you know that cops who wear glasses normally need to wear prescription sunglasses!??!?!?!OMG so no..its not tactical advantage, unless you deem being able to see and write in the sunlight is a tactical advantage…and notice..they are always filmed outdoors? WOW omg….

LostCoastEMP
Guest
LostCoastEMP
5 years ago
Reply to  Really?

Um really…… you are wrong. If you don’t know where someone’s eyes are looking at, it gives that person a tactical advantage. It doesn’t matter if it’s a street fight or a gun fight. The cop is looking at where your eyes go….. your eyes are a dead giveaway of your actions in the next second.

NoShitSherlock
Guest
NoShitSherlock
5 years ago
Reply to  Really?

Why are you so upset?

Mark olsen
Guest
5 years ago

I knew chip very well ,and I never heard about this I’m not saying it ain’t true just didn’t know that .

Ernie
Guest
Ernie
5 years ago
Reply to  Mark olsen

Yep Mark, it’s true

North west
Guest
North west
5 years ago

Maybe you have certain reasons to bring two angels into this
No judgment hear But I’d think maybe you could have proved you’re ( point ) without bringing them into adults conversations

julie mooney
Guest
julie mooney
5 years ago

yes, that is where Chip shot my husband on July 8, 1972. That mountain is cursed.

Random Observer
Guest
Random Observer
5 years ago
Reply to  julie mooney

Cursed how and why?

LostCoastEMP
Guest
LostCoastEMP
5 years ago

Every mountain in humboldt is a “ murder mountain!”

Joe
Guest
Joe
5 years ago
Reply to  julie mooney

WOW! That was a while ago!

Mogtx
Guest
5 years ago

Wow did he ever get in trouble for it ? I was 12 years old .I don’t remember hearing about it .

Conservatism Is Corruption 🐘💰👈🏼🇷🇺
Guest
Conservatism Is Corruption 🐘💰👈🏼🇷🇺
5 years ago

Too bad the New Zealand prime minister 🇳🇿 isn’t OUR president. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a SANE person in charge of OUR government, just like New Zealand? 🇳🇿

Michael R Ross
Guest
Michael R Ross
5 years ago

What a good idea! If guns weren`t for sale, then no one could buy them. Come to think of it, they should do the same thing with meth and heroin and not allow those things to be sold. If it`ll work for guns, it`ll certainly work for meth and heroin.

cristal
Guest
cristal
5 years ago
Reply to  Michael R Ross

Fentanyl is easier to hide.

Erik
Guest
Erik
5 years ago
Reply to  Michael R Ross

Why not just outlaw murder? What, am i like the smartest person in the room here?

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Doh! Opposites attract!

I did laugh though, as I found your comment hilarious. Unfortunately I must add a not funny retort for the seriousness of the general discussion.

Should the Constitution give everyone the right to murder, and if so, should we expect murder rates to fall?

Erik
Guest
Erik
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

No Brian, i am not putting /sarc tags on my comments lol. Deadly force is probably justified in this instance, hence the arrest. I would like to hear the full story. The constitution is just fine like it is, we just need our “elected” government to follow it. No wars of aggression.

LostCoastEMP
Guest
LostCoastEMP
5 years ago
Reply to  Michael R Ross

Great point. Only criminals will have guns. Ingenious

Festus Haggins
Guest
Festus Haggins
5 years ago

It would be fucking great, they could get rid of that pesky 1rst amendment also while we are at it! I can’t believe we still have those outdated 250 year old laws, Hell we should just round file that whole damn constitution and start over. Maybe we could model ourselves after a progressive country like Venezuela or Somalia. Now we know New Zealand is just as screwed up as the U.S.A. as they have those nasty guns also.

Willow Creeker
Guest
Willow Creeker
5 years ago
Reply to  Festus Haggins

Justify the 2nd amendment to me. I’m a gun owner and I hunt regularly. But I’d be happy to outlaw assault rifle and I think NZ is doing the right thing.

Antichrist
Guest
Antichrist
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

real easy more people die each year from doctors failibg to fully check charts than by assult rifles each year in america. infact more people die from elderly drivers each year than from assult rifles or rifles in general. what califorina calls assult rifles and what truely are assult rifles are very differant things. but you know most folks just swallow and repeat whatever they are fed. just like with the prius being good for the planet …..

Conservatism Is Corruption 🐘💰👈🏼🇷🇺
Guest
Conservatism Is Corruption 🐘💰👈🏼🇷🇺
5 years ago
Reply to  Antichrist

So, your point is BAN MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS?!? 🚫🚑 Those damn doctors and their liberal do-goodness trying to save people’s lives from gunshot trauma socialist nonsense! Pull your shot-up ass up by its own bootstraps! 🔫. No taxpayer handouts for victims of gun massacres!

#GOPGoingUpInFlames 🔥🏌️🐘💩🔥

some people children
Guest
some people children
5 years ago

what is the matter with you. doctors regularly over perscribe and are the number 1 hard drug dealers in the world, also they keep the path to true health a secert…. diet and exersise

msknowitall
Guest
msknowitall
5 years ago

Comparing the mortality rate of one thing with another by numbers is ridiculous. For example, “bees kill more people than sharks.” That’s true numerically, of course. But if you’re not allergic to bee stings, you have zero chance of being killed by a bee sting, unless you’re driving a car or operating a chain saw at the time) If you don’t go into the ocean a shark can’t kill you, unless you eat a tainted shark steak. A comparison of death by guns and death by medical errors doesn’t give us any real information at all. And just think — what if you get erroneous medical care after being shot? AND you’re allergic to bee stings and a bee flies into the room…. (wish I could figure out how to get a shark attack into this scenario).

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  msknowitall

Nice job.

Your right on the money.

Avoidance and evasion of facts, plus diehard mentality of logic-free freedumbs is what I’m seeing by many.

———

Australia and Britain both changed their gun laws in response to mass shootings.

The Australian government overhauled its guns laws in 1996 after 35 people were murdered during a shooting spree in Tasmania. Australia banned all semi-automatic weapons and restricted certain handguns. It offered to buy back prohibited firearms. 

A 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Australia hadn’t had a fatal mass shooting – one in which five or more people are killed – since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior to the new laws, there were 13.

The turning point for Britain came in 1996, when a man used a legally owned handgun to kill 16 young children and a teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. In the aftermath, all private ownership of handguns was banned.

Since then, there has been one mass shooting, in 2010, in Britain.

Steve
Guest
Steve
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

Hey W C first they take away AR 15s then its semi auto pistols,then its semi auto shotguns…where does it stop? Guns are our right! If you don’t like it maybe you should move to somewhere that has taken guns away!

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

Around 400 people a year are killed by all rifles including assault “Style” rifles, which usually make up less than a hundred..

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

Easy, just do some research about the Revolutionary War and what started it. Then you’ll understand why the founding fathers were so adamant about the Second Amendment. You’ll also find out the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or Sports….

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  THC

Actually THC, citing the founding fathers for gun rights is flawed.

More of what your ascribing to founding fathers is actually due to the Black Panther party in the 1960’s.

No shit.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjNuY-4i5ThAhXl44MKHTGjAcsQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2Fnews%2Fblack-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act&psig=AOvVaw0WY3oYmQzgs5b80Zr9zN4i&ust=1553287083679838

That’s precursary too. Look into it.

Try to find “gun rights campaigns” anywhere from 1800-1960 and post a link if you do.

Yes, I own guns.

Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”

The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

The reason they didn’t have to advocate for gun laws back in the 1800s is because it wasn’t even a question back then. And Are you seriously trying to make the point we have the Second Amendment because of the Black Panther Party?

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  THC

No. Lol.

Guns simply weren’t a big facet of peoples lives.

Infact,the point I’m making is no one gave a shit about guns on a large scale spectrum politically until The Black Panthers.

The language you are using, the arguements and logic are straight up out of the BPP playbook.

Obviously they didn’t write the second, they were the first ones to exploit it, is my point.

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Seriously, you do realize there’s hundreds of these quotes that predate the Black Panthers by Ooo, a hundred plus years.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
-George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12 1776

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

THC,

Yes I know. 99% of those quotes are from pre 1800, also.

That’s when people loaded their muskets through the muzzle.

And their quotes are not campaigns, just pieces of speeches you’ve been handed down to reinforce tired and irrelevant arguements.

But that still misses the point.

Your ideology on guns, like many other peoples, has more to do with the Black Panthers exploiting the 2nd in order to empower themselves against systemic racism -than dead people who wouldn’t recognize a bullet if you could show it to them.

If I had a penny for every dead president quote!

Biiaaatch
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Piss off!

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Festus Haggins
Guest
Festus Haggins
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

Willowcreeker, what the hell does hunting have to do with the 2nd? the 2nd is to keep the government in check. Read history much? Will you cut your dick off to stop rapes? Lets get rid of cars and stop those drunk drivers!

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Festus Haggins

Way off festus, way off.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Ullr.

I’m just done with 250 year old quotes.

Show those dead guys a bullet, they wouldn’t know what it was.

Those people are dead. And so are their quotes.

If they were alive I’m sure they would have some great thoughts after listening to facts regarding the issue.

So, I’m waiting for great thoughts. Share em if you got em.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Why do you think the second amendment exists? How about the first? Are the intentions of both, written by “dead guys”, so antiquated that they should be scrapped?

If you care for any of your natural born rights then the 2nd amendment is paramount to securing those rights. None of the others stand without that bulwark.

Regardless of the advancement in firearms the very intention was to have a citizenry with parity in arms to any standing army, foreign or domestic.

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– dead guy Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

1)I think the 2nd exists because our country was born of rebellion.

At the time, we were the newest and smallest country that also happened to break free from the largest and most powerful.

2) the changes to language over 250 years are not comparable to the technological changes in weaponry. Comparing the 2 seem silly.

But as I’ve said before, the most common form of fighting tyranny is in a court room, with the 1st. Not at the OK corral, with the 2nd.

3)I’m going to avoid this by reminding you of my history: Born in Chile under Pinochet.

But I also find your statement slightly exaggerated.

You, just 2 days ago, argued blacks should not be holding onto acts or words by whites 150 years ago.

But now your holding onto 250 year old statements for your position.

You will dismiss this as idiotoc comparisons but I call it hypocritical and one sided for you perfectly.

4) please refer to #2.

I’ll consider the quote another penny for my pocket.

Your playing the BPP playbook, by the way.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

So, 3000 years of accumulated wisdom should be disregarded because those who spoke or wrote the words are dead. One of the lamest arguments I’ve bothered to respond to.

Perhaps Pinochet’s reign would have been much shorter had there been a well armed populace intent on securing their liberties.

The rest of your comment is too inane to warrant response.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

You seem to be able to ignore history just fine.

Blacks have no reason for anger in America, was your concept, because enough time has passed since slavery.

3000 years ago we thought the sun revolved around the earth, and earth was flat. I’m fine with tossing “wisdom” out for facts!

Perhaps had the CIA not used speech as Propaganda and financial manipulation against Allende, we would not have had a CIA backed Coup.

The perhaps game is stupid.

* Consider our feelings mutual about stupid comment responses. I responded to you when you compared “squarehead” to “nigger”.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

You really are stuck with group identity. My argument is we are individuals and as individuals we choose to respond to ethnic slurs or not. I compared one ethnic slur to another ethnic slur. If you are going to call one slur bad and another not bad that is a value judgment on you.

“3000 years ago we thought the earth revolved around the sun, and earth was flat.” The earth does orbit the sun, and the Greeks (Eratosthenes of Cyrene 3rd century bce) knew the Earth was a sphere, calculated within 15% of accuracy.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

* I hope you know that was a big mix-up on my typing. We thought the sun revolved around the earth was the obvious statement I thought I typed. I edited it.

You have no reason to be offended by nigger because your white!

And your imposing your non-feelings regarding the word onto the people that have a reason to be upset.

I think I’m stuck on how someone compares squarehead to nigger as equal with a serious face.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Based on your logic with ethnic slurs, since you are neither black nor nordic your opinion on the matter has no validity. So, don’t be hypocritical and pretend your opinion on the matter has any value whatsoever.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

And with that logic I guess sympathizing with Jewish folk who don’t like to be called swine is off the table.

That’s utter ridiculousness.

It is not my opinion that nigger is offensive, it’s the facts of history of black people. They have convinced (some) whites why it is offensive.

Again, whites used to own blacks like guns. They were property. You ignore that.

Your cherry picking history to fit your ideals. Pointing it out does not make me wrong.

I have yet to be convinced by you and only you alone that squarehead is equally offensive.

Maybe I’m totally biased, but I think your lacking a good arguement.

Resorting to individual choice on reactions to ethnic slurs is a cop-out, and ignores relevant historical and current social norms. It also lacks empathy, not that empathy is a neccessary function of life.

Sorry, nothing personal.

Sheesh
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

To defend ones self, property, and personal liberty.
And hunting also if you want.

Jim Brickley
Guest
Jim Brickley
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

Why can’t I get my hands on a bazooka? I would think if you’re so determined to own a weapon of war, maybe you should just join the service! Oh and, if you need a fuckin machine gun to hunt, you might want to pick up a different hobby. Just saying.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Jim Brickley

No, they just need to be a good shot or enjoy the meat they hunt.

No one hunts with semi-auto long barrels unless your sitting in a hotel in Vegas or a school or church.

Anon
Guest
Anon
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

What an awful thing to say. Factually wrong and just plain awful.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Anon

Truth hurts.

I used to hunt with a single shot.

The mini 14 stayed home.

How many bullets do you like in your deer?

And, really, it is an awful to say, but worse, it’s quite accurate. The only hunting I see with semi-auto longs is humans.

Anon
Guest
Anon
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Are you just trolling here? The truth is that even if you don’t hunt with semi-autos, millions of others do. For you to state that those guns are only good for hunting people is gross and wrong, and takes away from what might otherwise (even though I disagree) be compelling arguments. Inflammatory statements like this do nothing to enlighten anyone and are easily just as bad as the horrible right wing rhetoric that has contributed to a schism in our country. While the truth may hurt, that’s not what I’m feeling here. I’m disappointed that the rhetoric has brought us here. You should know better, and if you don’t you should endeavor to.

ETA: of COURSE a hunter should make every effort to humanely harvest animals. It’s not about how many bullets we want in our meat, it’s about working to eliminate cruelty and waste in the process.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Sorry your offended by my statement.

I don’t think its inaccurate that hunting humans was the goal of most mass shooters. Most want as many casualties as possible in as short a time as possible. Its brutal.

Agree to disagree with an apology for offending you.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Charles Whitman used a bolt action Remington 700 in his shooting spree in Texas.

In France some used trucks. In NY and Washington they used passenger jets.

In Italy on Wednesday someone hijacked a school bus and tried to burn all the kids to death.

It’s not the tool, it’s the user.

http://thesentinel.net/news/world-news/italy-muslim-migrant-hijacked-bus-full-of-schoolchildren-and-set-it-ablaze/

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Correction:

Whitman used a semi-auto M1 carbine and a semi-auto shotgun, as well as knives, pistols, single shots.. He was armed with many weapons.

Dapper dean used glass rods to torture his victims.

I know all that.

Doesn’t negate my point.

None were as efficient at killing kids or humans than the semi-autos.

Ignoring the tools is like doing math with half the *numerics: 1 + 0 = 2.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Whitman possessed other weapons, but Remington 700 is the rifle he sniped with.

Passenger jets and rented trucks were more effective than firearms for these psychos to achieve their twisted goals.

As for your math metaphor, you did give me the whole equation, it’s just wrong.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

I don’t expect you to drop the dogma so I’ll retire myself from this conversation.

My points are solid and I wont run more circles around every new twist you come up with that really has no relevance to gun control discussions.

Have a good day.

*Note the verbage edit on my math equation for technical accuracy.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Brian- I don’t expect you to respond to this; your points are not “solid”. In fact you have offered no real facts at all. You’re relying on old arguments built around myopic emotional response or weak data points. I’m not a dogmatic person and rely entirely on facts, as best as I can digest them, for my political positions.

‘Argument’ comes from the Latin ‘arguere’ to make clear. You have done nothing to clarify your posistion. ‘Sensible restrictions ‘ is the single vagueness you mentioned. The rest have been to impugn “dead guys” because you disagree with the political philosophy they espoused or those that have the audacity to subscribe to that philosophy.

Molan labe

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Your totally subjective with your response and its fine.

You have a tendency to cherry pick, as I’ve demonstrated.

Unfortunately I doubt that anyone who you and I would agree is objective, is going to chime in and tell us our “points scored” per this debate.

And if you think I came here to argue certain measures of gun control, I did not. And I have made no points to that end.

What I have done is pointed out all the holes in your arguements for denying a conversation about gun control.

I have begun the education process for you, THC and others regarding who exploited the 2nd first, The Black Panthers.

Its been 200 different tired quotes and 3 days, but no one has found me a “gun rights campaign” from 1800 to 1950.

You’ve done what always happens with unoriginal gun control debate: contorted this into a trucks and planes topic….

I’m not impugning dead guys. I’m impugning you for using 250 year old quotes, but denying black people the right to do the same for their arguments.

Its blatant cherry pickin hypocrisy. You wont agree with me now; you’ll think quietly over time, and I hope some of this rings a bell.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

There was no gun rights campaigns in that time frame because there was no question about the right to bear arms. The only questions were the right to carry concealed, which was considered illegal because only people with nefarious intentions needed to hide their weapon. Open carry was a standard.

I support the Black Panthers and their excerising of their 2nd amendment rights. It scared the shit out of old white men and there was a backlash when the power structure realized a motivated population of well armed citizen could change the power structure.

I am unaware of any “holes” you pointed out in my arguments. Please enlighten.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian
Erik
Guest
Erik
5 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

The justification is called human nature. Humans and their governments are violent, they always have been and always will be, nothing changes except on an individual level. See the Buddhist concept of samsara and the five poisons of the mind, an excellent philosophical observation of the human condition. The people that created the bill of rights understood this and insisted on a set of guidelines for the newly created federal government based on their understanding of history. The arguments that preceded the creation of this country’s foundational guidelines are some of the best examples of democracy in human history. The first and second amendment are numbered such because of their importance. Everything in the bill of rights is backstopped by the second amendment, because something that creates this much freedom and limits the powerful is going to need defending sooner or later from the individuals and entities that seek control. The second amendment is as apropos today as it was 250 years ago, if not more so. A simple look our government’s policies under either party should drive this home. Just to be clear, the bill of rights are not privileges granted by some entity, they are a pre-political, individual enumerated rights that underpin our republic. They are fundamentally not subject to democratic process. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Democracy is a verb in our system of governance. The second amendment protects the individual right to own the non-crew served weapons of the soldier in a mostly unregulated fashon, and the right to use deadly force for self defense. Gun violence has dropped precipitously since the mid 70’s as private firearm ownership has increased. According to the small arms survey the total firearms owned by ALL the worlds militaries and police forces total about 156,000,000. The number of firearms in private ownership in the US totals between 421,000,000 and 660,000,000 depending on sources. We have a far less violent culture than many first world socialist democracies if you ignore the actions of our government. The cdc and other researchers found that the use of firearms for justifiable self defense averaged about 500,000 to 2 million times a year during their sample period, with shots fired in less than 1% of incidences. Rifles, of which ARs and other semiautomatics are a subset are generally responsible for less than 400 homicides on average annually, slightly more than half of the homicides involving hammers which are available over the counter.
https://theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/stances-regarding-regulation/

stuber
Guest
stuber
5 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Good job. Perfect. Thank you for the time you took to tell the truth. Bravo Eric, Bravo

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Erik,

Please at least thank the Black Panthers.

https://kymkemp.com/2019/03/20/shooting-on-twin-trees-road-near-benbow-one-in-custody/#comment-796619

As you know I’m a stickler for accuracy, and a majority of credit to founding fathers is an inaccurate portrayal of why we are what we are.

Follow the link, I have faith at least you will look into it.

Erik
Guest
Erik
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Read the federalist papers. And the black panthers rock. And military pattern rifles have always been repurposed for hunting, AR’s are commonly used for harvesting game all across North America, just not in .223 for larger game, although 77 grain bullets will take small to mid size game just fine. And this discussion is not about hunting, it is about civilian parity with a standing army as prescribed in the bill of rights. Were not supposed to have a standing army unless we are being physically attacked / invaded. But forget all this, even if you hate guns and want them banned doing so will not stop occasional acts of violence and terrorism, adults and others with an understanding of abstract thought realize banning a tool has no effect on human motivation especially when there are other equally effective methods to accomplish violence. The NZ shooter discussed this in his manifesto, he choose guns because of the media shit storm and narrative surrounding them, and he decorated them with slogans and symbols so his ideas would propagate uncontrolled by the very people that claim outrage by his actions. And the NZ prime minister is doing exactly what he wanted, forcing law abiding citizens to give up legally acquired possessions. The fact that gun control is put forward by our supposed leaders as a solution to stop atrocities is a logic fail. Prior to the mass shooting in Australia that precipitated their gun ban, there were almost no mass causality events involving firearms, and violence was on a downward trend similar to America. After the ban and turn in, violence continued it’s downward trend with only a slight improvement right after the ban which bounced back slightly with an up tic in armed home invasions. New Zealand, with almost identical demographics and gun ownership stats matched the downward trend in violence even though no ban was enacted there. This is not an argument about safety and civil society, it’s about power and control. And it’s not the only arena where this battle is playing out, check out the laws Australia is enacting around encryption for instance. In America this would be a violation of both our 1st and 4th amendment, among others. Expecting a government that has been engaging in industrial scale genocide and violence since it’s inception to have any real concern for your safety is a fools errand.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Honestly,

I’m just so fucking happy you didn’t give me a 250 year old quote to hold your position I might go stroke a long barrel.

I don’t hate guns I own them, I doubt I’ll ever use them on an invading Chinese army or anything.

No one is taking all the guns, it’s just discussions on sensible controls to access on the most brutal exploits of the 2nd.

And restricting access does have effects, though nothing is an absolute.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

What are “sensible controls”?

What information do you have that restricting access has a positive effect?

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Sensible controls:

Don’t need bump stocks, that’s the most recent.

Restricting access:

Walk into an R rated movie tonight at the theater. Count the 10 year olds inside.

Come back and tell me the count.

But I could see why that and a million other examples could be dismissed, so then:

https://kymkemp.com/2019/03/20/shooting-on-twin-trees-road-near-benbow-one-in-custody/#comment-796576

But it’s also hard to prove something hasn’t happened because of a law that’s been enacted. Know what I mean?

shak
Guest
shak
5 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Sheesh, Erik, if you wish to hold a ‘discussion’ with the commies, you should have used the search engine that was co founded by the Russian dude, it’s the only one the commies respect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin

As for self, I thank you for the important and absolute truth you’ve shared. Long live the Constitutional Republic!

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  shak

Ignore the facts shak, it’s what you’ve become known for around these parts.

Thanks for proving it all day every day.

Huh?
Guest
Huh?
5 years ago
Reply to  Festus Haggins

Guns are good
Yay Dumboldt

shak
Guest
shak
5 years ago

Well, considering they are arresting people just for sharing the video and discussing the discrepancies found in it, maybe they’ll extend that honor and start arresting those who just bring up the discussion at all. Hope and change we can believe in!

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  shak

Shakey shak,

discrepancies found in it,

I smell the Alex Jonesaphile in you.

Your about 12 hours away from claiming crisis actors. You are such a fool that refuses to learn from your mistakes.

Calling you out is so easy!

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  shak

Let me translate Shak for the new readers:

No one real makes mistakes.

Misnaming a victim is surefire proof of this whole thing being staged by Alec Baldwin and George Soros (the grey aliens), and the same actors from Sandy Hook.

They obviously have 21 agendas that will keep us all thinking the earth is round. Obvious. True turds, I mean words.

The orbs they deployed to start the CA fires were an obvious connection to the fake New Zealand horrors. They can’t take guns unless they start fires, duh.

And it’s all part of the Orange-tinting-spiracy. Trump will save us from these fake fakers faking not real untruths!

If you don’t understand this you must be a slave of Soros, and against all freedumbs!

Conservatism Is Corruption 🐘💰👈🏼🇷🇺
Guest
Conservatism Is Corruption 🐘💰👈🏼🇷🇺
5 years ago

[edit]

stuber
Guest
stuber
5 years ago

Um, I love to tell you, the Constitution is the law. No one is taking our guns. And how do you ban something you cannot find. For $1800 bucks, you can have all the tooling needed to build AR 15s all day long. There are almost a billion guns in this country. And probably more rounds than NATO. The largest militia in the world is comprised of gun owners in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. You cannot go to peoples homes and take them, per the 2nd and 4th amendment. When the Japanese representatives returned to Japan, just before WWII, they had traveled across the US by train. When they got to Japan, they told the Antichrist Hirohito not to engage with the US. They told him Americans had guns behind every tree, and in every home. He did not listen, and tested our resolve to be free. He failed the test big time, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are his legacy. Real Americans will do what it takes to be free, and will not allow those who would rule us to do so, they know they cannot, because we have guns. The NRA is just a very small percentage of gun owners. Most people just keep their mouth shut and have them. If you are against freedom, you are against guns, and that means you are not an American. And hasn’t pot been banned for a hundred years in this country? And did it stop us from growing? It was banned, but the majority of us still made it, harvested the banned pot. When the govt bans something, it does not mean we cannot get it. Guns, in any form, are not the problem. People who think they have to rule us are the problem.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  stuber

This would have been a more logical action in NZ:

Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Bill

“House Bill HB786, would prevent all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans.”

http://thesentinel.net/politics/missouri-bans-all-federal-gun-control-laws-in-23-10-vote/

Bad idea
Guest
Bad idea
5 years ago

Yea that would be great gun ban change the voting age open borders after birth abortion No property rights Free healthcare 1000 dollars each for free each month. Yea sounds good?????👌 glad your not in charge or your party😂😂😂😂☠️☠️

stuber
Guest
stuber
5 years ago

In New Mexico, or Arizona, out of 32 counties, 29 sheriffs said they will not enforce any state or federal law that denies or infringes on the second amendment. There are a few good sheriffs in Calif that said the same thing. Bravo. If you turn in a gun, you are the problem. The new Zealand prime minister is wrong, and she is hurting her people. Also, lest we forget, 15 Muslims killed almost 4000 of us in one morning. And in San Bernadino, and a Florida gay night club, over 50 I believe. Not to mention the thousands of Christians and Jews and gays being killed in Muslim countries as we speak. History is important.

LostCoastEMP
Guest
LostCoastEMP
5 years ago

Lmao. Yes. Because taking away constitutional rights and freedom of choice is so much better. Please move out of this country. There are starving kids in Africa. Go there and speak your mind free fully, you will have it on a pike pile by noon!

xray
Guest
xray
5 years ago

Taking away guns is not very smart IMHO

TQM
Guest
TQM
5 years ago
Antix
Guest
Antix
5 years ago
Reply to  TQM

LMAO 😂 ……. & Word!

Silverling
Guest
Silverling
5 years ago

I’m not getting anything from the comments section here.

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago

What do the police expect when they refuse to remove a squatter from someone else’s property? The man “allegedly” involved in the shooting tried going through the police first but they wouldn’t help him…

Me
Guest
Me
5 years ago

Wait a min isn’t that the same address as the girls that got lost

Guest
Guest
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  Me

No it is not… WOW!! Leave the little girls out of this! I live on this mountain, and you all should just keep your comments to yourselves. This mountain is not cursed. This is a tragic situation tha should of been avoided. This man is a good man that tries to help people and this is how he is treated? Shame on all of you!

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  Me

No this has nothing to do with my daughters.

Paul
Guest
Paul
5 years ago
Reply to  THC

Not sure I understand, THC. Are you the parent of the two young kids that were lost for two nights a few weeks ago? Kuddos to your parentage and training if you are. I’m planning to teach my two sons survival skills right away after that story. As to this story, if the person who is the landowner was trying to remove a squatter, and it degraded to violence, and the authorities were notified in advance, by my way of thinking, he was in the right. Anyone squatting on my property, who won’t leave, is considered dangerous and a threat to me and my family. We live out away from town, and threats are different, or at least they are treated differently.

When a victim screams for help in the forest and nobody hears…

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul

Yes, he is. If you want a hand with wilderness skills, let me know.

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul

I am the father of the girls and you should certainly teach your kids survival skills. Justin has a great class at 4-H you should seriously think about signing them up.

Paul
Guest
Paul
5 years ago
Reply to  THC

Thanks THC. Justin is too far away but Rover is close. My six year old knows how to make a fire, but the five year old doesn’t. Neither knows how to swim, and while I’ve considered using the John Wayne method I won’t because of CPS. Also THC, I showed the photos of your girls to my two boys from Kim’s article and they understood the situation pretty well. When they were found my boys expressed their joy at the happy outcome. I also used the situation to demonstrate to my kids the importance of listening to their mother or father, like when they are told to keep away from the river, which is flowing about 4,000cuft/sec, right now.

Thanks again; all the best to yours

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul

🖒

lee
Guest
lee
5 years ago

well that’s why i wear sunglasses,keep your dignity…it less to others to know

evengy zamatkin de cabrera.
Guest
evengy zamatkin de cabrera.
5 years ago

They wear ski masks where I’m from.

Wtf really
Guest
Wtf really
5 years ago

Pretty crazy hum co.. Yoj want to realease a svp into our area and have a meeting Bout it in eureka and then u wanna arrest a man for defending his home and hold him on 500000 dollar bond.. Meanwhile what about his life and pets??? And what about the sheroff not doing anything about a crazy swuater threatning a man… Pretty stupid.. Itd be cool if there was a reporter out there who could dig into thia and find out why there is such nonsense… Can u not shoot someone if they are refusing to leace your home or property and threatening you. I have kids. Ild do the same as him.

THC
Guest
THC
5 years ago
Reply to  Wtf really

They wouldn’t remove him because originally Thomas had hired him to help do some cleanup work on his property and was allowing him to stay there. Apparently their relationship was degrading over the last several weeks. Thomas contacting the local sheriff’s to have the guy removed and they refuse to do anything and apparently the situation degraded even further. I’m not sure about the exact details, but I’d have to agree if you want somebody off your property you should be able to legally remove them, as long as no legal binding contract restricts the removal.

Michael R Ross
Guest
Michael R Ross
5 years ago
Reply to  Wtf really

You cannot shoot someone unless they present an immediate threat to your life or the life of another person. There is a “grey’ area about what constitutes an immediate threat; however, it`s quite narrow. I believe you do have a duty to retreat (i.e., get away from them) in California if they`re not in your house. I.e. if they`re on the back 40 armed with an axe and refusing to leave; you can`t approach to within axe range and shoot them.

If someone breaks into your house when you`re inside it, they (generally) are fair game. It`s considered that if someone breaks into a dwelling, they have the intent of inflicting harm or death on the occupant and presumably the means.

A gun is not an all-purpose solution. It`s a highly specialized piece of emergency equipment. Please go light on the trigger.

Mark olsen
Guest
5 years ago

What the f*** really if it was my home that someone was invading damned right I shoot them.

chairokee
Guest
chairokee
5 years ago

Done a lot of equipment work on that mtn, never one issue.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago

Ullr, continued from above:

The reasons that there were no gun rights campaigns in the time period of post-revolution to 1960 was multi-faceted, but essentially your way wrong about Gun Control.

As the times and tech changed, so did the opinions of most logical thinkers:

Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don’t want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.
What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness. By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.

The editor of the Black Hills Daily Times of Dakota Territory in 1884, called the idea of carrying firearms into the city a “dangerous practice,” not only to others, but to the packer himself. He emphasized his point with the headline, “Perforated by His Own Pistol.”

The editor of the Montana’s Yellowstone Journal acknowledged four years earlier that Americans have “the right to bear arms,” but he contended that guns have to be regulated.

Old West cattlemen themselves also saw the need for gun control. By 1882, a Texas cattle raising association had banned six-shooters from the cowboy’s belt. “In almost every section of the West murders are on the increase, and cowmen are too often the principals in the encounters,” concurred a dispatch from the Texas Live Stock Journal dated June 5, 1884. “The six-shooter loaded with deadly cartridges is a dangerous companion for any man, especially if he should unfortunately be primed with whiskey. Cattlemen should unite in aiding the enforcement of the law against carrying of deadly weapons.” 

https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

Further,

“Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,”

Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

The first federal gun control measures implemented in the 1930’s.

http://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago

Regardless of the interest of municipalities the attempt to infringe on 2nd amendment rights didn’t occur ( as per your link) until 1934. All previous efforts were rendered moot.

FDR continued the trend of Wilson in usurping the Constitution and creating an Administrative State.

“In the century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.[190] The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. /1 / 1 (1820), where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside.[m] In the Dred Scott decision (1857), the opinion of the court stated that if African Americans were considered U.S. citizens, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right … to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”[191]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

I can tell you didn’t read it. Again, and in the least:

Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town

Ullr, your stuck. I can’t get you out, only you can. I’m wasting time if your going to reply with 250 year old segments of speeches and wikipedia’s to support Dogma.

You aren’t discussing anything, your grabbing at anything you can to try to reinforce your position, no matter what.

You are refusing to be open to discussing gun control, no matter how much I show the holes in your logic and dogmas.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

I did read it. I said “Regardless of the interest of municipalities …” And you quoted, “Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government …the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town.”

So what? I fail to see your point. So a town of 900 people passed a gun ordinance. How is this significant?

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

“You are refusing to be open to discussing gun control, no matter how much I show the holes in your logic and dogmas.” Not one hole demonstrated. If you disagree, reiterate, please.

As illustrated by dead guy Thomas Payne in the quote I offered, the balance of peace lies in the balance of power. You can get rid of all the guns or make sure we all have access to maintain the peace. You’re not going to get rid of all the guns.

“God created man. Colt made them equal.”

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Gee, should I post 2000 links to each municipal or private business gun control measure from 1800-1950?

I charge 19$ per hour for research for others. I’ll post the mailing address or I’ll meet you at the bar for payment.

At first you said there was no gun control in my timeline.

Now you say its 1 town, but it was more than that just in what I posted. Tombstone. That’s you being wrong twice. Should I go on?

I posted segments of 3 articles, theres at least 1000 more available with your keyboard.

And even if I helped show you, you would still say “so what.”

Your cemented in your dogmatic belief. And as I’ve stated before, belief is what happens when you can’t find enough verifiable evidence or proof.

Man made God.

Paynes a fool for thinking otherwise, or like most, trying to gain attention by stroking the egos and emotions of the religious idiots in America.

But again, you retort to some really old irrelevant quote for modern day discussions, all the while ignoring the 150 years of gun control between your dead friends and now.

Personally I don’t idolize anyone, especially to the point that the idolization gets in the way of my brainpower and logic. But that’s just me.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

I’ll ask again, what’s your point? Cities, municipalities and other entities attempted to create and enforce gun control ordinances. What is your stance? That this happened? Ok. So what? What does that mean? What is your point?

If your posistion is that the USA should amend the Constitution and ban firearms or attempt to pass laws banning some firearms, then be clear to that point.

Heller vs. DC is established law. Do you have an argument against it? Because it would have nullified every one of the old west cases you cited.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York is more than likely going to further reinforce the unalienable right of the 2nd Amendment.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

More on Thomas Paine after reading.

“The U.S. was in the early stages of the Second Great Awakening when Paine returned. The religiously devout were given a reason to dislike Paine because of his “The Age of Reason.”

 It followed the tradition of 18th century deism, challenging institutionalized religion and the Bible’s legitimacy”

https://historythings.com/controversial-founding-father-thomas-paine

It seems Paine was no idiot, and if your quote was by him, it didn’t fit with his matured philosophy.

He was quite liberal, and I bet he would discuss gun control and realize it’s not destroying the 2nd. Again your failing to assume for the brains of the founding fathers.

You quote them and assume that they would say the same today, when there really is no basis for that idea.

If you want a statement about gun control from me. Here;

“I’m open to the discussion.” – The Real Brian, 3/22/19

And a few more:

-I don’t care about bump stocks. Take em away!

-Higher age restrictions for enhanced fire-power.

-Software tech on semi auto longs triggers for fingerprint reading. Make sure it fires for only the owner, or for who the owner has programmed as “ok” through fingerprint entry.

-gps tracking tech.

I hope that satisfies you.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

The quote was from Colt. It succinctly summarized what Paine so eloquently wrote: those with power will take from those who don’t have power. “The balance of power is the scale of peace.”

You are assuming what these men might say today. I’m only quoting what they actually did say.

Bump stocks are a red herring. It doesn’t take a bump stock to do what a bump stock does.

How old does someone need to be to buy a gun? In California it’s 21 across the board: handgun, rifle, shotgun.

The tech you imagine doesn’t exist. Make it, patent it, get it forced on us by law… you’ll be rich.

GPS tracking of what by whom? 300 million tracking devices monitored by the Bureau of Tracking?

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Oh, a colt marketing ad, got it.

Yes, it’s like quoting anyone from so long ago: things have changed.

The only quotes that are timeless may be the ones of love, time, or death. Universal truth type shit.

Most people don’t know the belt trick. But it is gun control.

On age, my 1 opinion is worthless were democratic. But I think for semi auto longs I’d be fine with 28 years old.

21 is ok for the rest with me.

The tech exists, just not on guns yet. I don’t invent, I engineer inventions. But I think that was a good idea, and if someone gets rich from it please buy me dinner.

GPS tracking for the owners at least, the manufacturers second. Doubt the Gov. needs to be involved -* until we need to investigate. The tracking could provide lots of info, simply pulled from database.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

If I was the one monitoring the GPS for my possessions I wouldn’t mind that, but the tech isn’t there. It takes too much battery power to use for long periods… “I lost my gun because I forgot to charge it…”

Certainly fingerprint readers exist, but not on a trigger with acute accuracy so it works 100% of the time. I have biometrics on my safe and it usually takes a couple of tries to open. You don’t want that when your life is on the line.

28 is arbitrary. 17 is old enough to sling a rifle for the military but not yourself or family….?

Personally, I think most of our social ailments come from the fracturing of families and communities. No law will change that.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Well, our military is a “well trained militia”.

But even you know the atrocities of our uneducated young service members in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Killing a million civilians, taking body parts as trophies, indiscriminate murder.

No. That is not good for me. Not in my name.

I hear you regarding the tech, it must work right for it to work right.

28 is arbitrary. But I picked it.