73°Clear

Del. Ken Plum: Never Armed Enough!

by Del. Ken Plum — September 21, 2017 at 10:15 am 102 Comments

This is a commentary from Del. Ken Plum (D-Fairfax), who represents Reston in Virginia’s House of Delegates. It does not reflect the opinion of Reston Now.

Much to my dismay last week, I received in the mail an envelope with the return address of the National Rifle Association of America headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. I knew immediately it was not a letter admonishing me for regularly taking part in the vigil to end gun violence held in front of their office on the 14th of each month.

No, the colorful envelope had two dozen pictures of various rifles, handguns and what I call machine guns. I was urged to open the envelope to take part in the “exciting NRA sweepstakes.” With the usual disclaimer that I did not have to join the NRA in order to win, the flyer announced in a list with pictures that the first prize in the sweepstakes was “12 World-Class Firearms” including four pistols, four rifle/shotguns and four other firearms that looked like military weapons to me. Second prize was nine such guns, and third prize was seven super firearms!

If I did not choose to take the guns, I could substitute a “trophy bull elk hunt in New Mexico; a bison, bird and deer hunt in North Dakota; or a black bear hunt in Ontario.” If I entered the sweepstakes by Oct. 31, I would be “eligible for a chance to win a top-of-the-line LaRue Tactical Rifle and 7,200 rounds of ammo!”

Needless to say, I will not be entering the sweepstakes, although I was tempted to so that if I won I could have the guns melted down and turned into some peaceful art symbols.

As disturbing to me as the military-style weapons offered as prizes was the language in the letter telling me why I should not just enter the sweepstakes but why I should join the NRA. Not a single mention was made that I might be a hobbyist, I might like hunting, I might be a marksman, etc. The entire pitch was about the threat of the government taking away people’s guns.

“NRA needs you as a fighting, card-carrying member more than ever before. … That’s because the Second Amendment is the one freedom that gives you and me the power to protect every other freedom in our Bill of Rights. … And because of gun owners like you, NRA has beaten back hundreds of attacks on our rights, from gun licensing to gun rationing, taxes and surtaxes on guns and ammo, ammo bans, gun bans, bans on gun shows, and more.”

Despite the rhetoric in the mailer, the reality I see is drastically different than Mr. [Wayne] LaPierre described in his letter. The U.S. Congress is currently debating the “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017” which, among other provisions, would allow the use of armor-piercing bullets and ease the importation of foreign-made assault rifles. One of its very frightening provisions would allow the use of silencers on guns. Proponents argue that gun users’ ears can be harmed by the sound. What about the practice in industry of having ear plugs or ear coverings? Imagine the slaughter a terrorist could do with a silenced gun!

For some it seems that we are never armed enough. I believe that opinion is more of a threat to our society than are common-sense gun safety measures.

  • John Wayne

    Written like someone who gets all the gun information from watching Hollywood movies.

    • Rational Reston

      That would mean that he formed his opinion by himself whereas it always appears that he just regurgitates what is handed to him verbatim.

  • TheRealODB
  • TheRealODB
  • drb

    Imagine the slaughter a terrorist could do if good people with a weapon could not stop the terrorist. We saw this play out at Fort Hood where our military were not even allowed to carry a firearm so that only the bad guy had one killing 13. Not to mention the many various shootings from bad guys over the years because it isn’t allowed or acceptable to have a firearm in public.

    No, Ken the second amendment isn’t for hobbyist, hunting, marksmanship, etc. It was to allow citizens to rise against government when it becomes needed. For a former history teacher you seem to fail again at your history.

    I have a suggestion for all those that want to reduce firearm purchases and conceal carry. Have our friends on the left take the Constitution seriously. It is the downright flagrant disregard for the Rule of Law and the Constitution that has citizens not trust the government and feel fearful of it and wonder when, not if, we will be required to stand up against it.

    We have seen the last administration be more corrupt than any before it including Nixon and Clinton. We are seeing the infighting of the left taking place on our streets throughout the country which have left property and people damaged and killed. We have also seen them attack those that they do not like or approve of opposing views.

    We on the right would not have to fear the left if the Constitution was abided by the left because it constrains them from implementing their failed policies and agenda. That is what the Constitution was designed for. It also left as a last resort for the citizenry to fight back if and when it is necessary.

    Oh, as a side note, your desire to try and win the NRA firearm so you could melt them down is another example of symbolism over substance. This is why the lefts ideas are such failures. Because you don’t care if something works as long as you can feel good about it regardless the harm you might inflict on others.

    • Tom Mccauley

      One side note on Fort Hood. When at Army medical training in Bethesda, Major Hassan regularly spouted off in class about how he could not battle another Muslim, as well as a few other choice idealistic nuggets. Not one classmate or teacher peeped a word in contrary.

      Point: free speech is welcome unless you speak freely about a minority group.

      Relevance here. Delegate Plum is beating the same old drum. The NRA fuels itself from nutbags like Ken Plum, et al.

  • Anonymous Poster

    Another well written article, void of any facts or concrete evidence, but chuck full of personal opinion… “looks like a machine gun to me”. What a loony toon.

  • The Constitutionalist

    Bravo, Ken.

    I guarantee everything you just said will cause more people who have lapsed on their NRA membership dues to re-up than causing people to do the opposite.

    • NRA

      It inspired me to renew mine.

  • Drip

    What a rambling and incoherent mess of a post. Any inkling of persuasiveness on this platform was squandered. Plum could have said that the Second Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court rulings guarantee the right to possess firearms, and go on to state that the Constitution does permit a reasonable amount of regulation. Plum could then proceed to make a coherent argument in favor of regulating certain types of ammunition and silencers. I may not agree with his position, but those are reasonable positions. Instead, Plum rails against the scary black gun, throws around erroneous terms like “machine gun,” raises the specter of terrorism just like he accuses his “fear-mongering” opponents of doing in other contexts, and fails to recognize whatsoever that people can possess those scary black guns just because they can, and not for sports reasons or anything else. Although Plum’s post is vastly incoherent, it appears like he is advocating against all firearms, but I can’t really tell.

  • Michael C

    TIL you can buy a “machine gun.”

    • MailMan

      TIL Ken gets offended by junk mail.

      • Evidently

        Triggered. Isn’t that the latest word for offended? I’ve never found a single opinion of his I could agree with…. and I never vote for him, but he never seems to have any opposition! Hmmm.

        • The Constitutionalist

          No, triggered is a word that will soon be outlawed because it sounds like something you do with assault rifles equipped with bullet buttons and silencers.

          Think of the children!

  • Gun Slinger

    I stock pile guns & ammo to defend myself when Libs like KP ruin the country.

  • ichrysso

    Reston Now should really stop publishing articles which are misleading their readership. The words “military” and “machine gun” are not appropriate, as military automatic weapons are not available to civilians. Ask Mr. Plum to revise the wording of his opinion pieces for truthfulness before publishing and even better, please augment the opinion of one delegate with alternative viewpoints. I understand that Plum is our delegate today, but the media’s job is not to reinforce the viewpoints of those who are currently in power, especially if those viewpoints are misleading, false or not completely accurate.

    • CNN

      Leave it to a liberal to judge something by the looks, and ignore the facts. RN is fast becoming Fake News.

    • Mike M

      Reston Now has given us the opportunity to refute Ken’s nonsense.

      • Reston Now

        Del. Plum’s columns (which are NOT news articles) are his opinion solely. This is why they carry the disclaimer that they do not reflect the opinion of Reston Now. It would not be our place to ask an elected official to change his thoughts. Rather, as Mike said, we present them in full and unedited so readers can see exactly who is representing them in Richmond.

        • Anonymous Poster

          But the problem is, Plums columns, and other liberal topics, are all RN publishes. There is never an attempt to not be biased. Its your paper, so you can do whatever you want, but it makes me just take every article with a particular small grain of salt.

          • Mike M

            Send an editorial. Or post here.

        • ichrysso

          Will you be allowing someone to counterpoint Ken’s opinion and more importantly, market it to the same level by broadcasting it on social media, etc?

          • Anonymous Poster

            Gonna be checking back to see the answer to this question.

          • ichrysso

            Still no reply from Reston Now and they put out another article by Ken Plum today. Yes, he is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

          • ichrysso

            And you wonder why the President is so effective with his messages about “fake news.” By not allowing alternative viewpoints which counter Mr. Plum’s inaccurate opinions, Reston Now has passively taken on the role of an advocate of those opinions.

          • ichrysso

            I thought I would bump this comment, considering that you have given Ken Plum and all of his inaccuracies yet another platform today. Reston Now is taking sides and only interested in offering a single viewpoint?

  • Mike M

    “Imagine the slaughter a terrorist could do with a silenced gun!”

    Imagine how quickly a terrorist would be shut down by a well-armed citizenry.

    • Scott

      Plus the fact that silencers only exist in movies. Suppressors only muffle a gunshot a little.

      • Rambo

        I think Ken thinks that the silencers make the “machine guns” shoot even more bullets….

        • The Constitutionalist

          Still trying to figure out what a silencer is…

          • Rambo

            According to Ken, its something a terrorist uses when he wants to slaughter, but forgot his/her ear plugs or ear covers.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Yeah, but what is it really…

          • Heh

            The silencer also magically prevents people from hearing any screams as the terrorist guns people down. Everyone just stands there puzzled as the bad guy shoots them all one by one!

  • LaPierre

    I’ve emailing this article to some lobbyist contacts I have at the NRA. They are going to have a field day with this nonsense!

  • 40yearsinreston

    This article is another KP red herring special that is purely designed to split the electorate for the DNC
    It is not meant for debate on issued or to.convince others to.vote for his party
    It is all about identity politics and getting the confirmed out to.vote for his cronies
    His tripe is best ignored

  • Curious

    Why do all you far right commentators live in Reston, one of the most liberal areas on the East Coast? Why can’t you all just “get over” living in a majority liberal area – liberals who have the right to choose to be that way (just as you have the right to your opinions). Why don’t you just move if you don’t like it (like you would tell anyone who doesn’t like the white, Christian culture you want the entire US to adhere to)? I’m genuinely curious.

    • Drip

      I don’t think it is “far right” to desire pragmatic leadership who can convey their positons coherently. However, your insinuation that everyone commenting on Plum’s rambling post is “white, Christian” is 1) a myopic assumption; 2) wrong; and 3) contradicts your entire point by conveying your view that if people do not agree with your “majority liberal” position, you will stoop to name-calling and suggest that those who disagree leave.

    • Mike M

      We believe some of you basically pretty intelligent and salvageable. Crazy?
      Trust me, Curious, I ain’t no Christian. But I prefer much of it to your religion of hate, division, and cheap false righteousness.

      • Curious

        It’s nice to know you are so self-sacrificing that you are willing to live amongst so many liberals in order to save us from ourselves. But that doesn’t sound righteous, now does it?

        • Mike M

          Actually, I think it is genuinely so.

          • Curious

            From all the comments I’ve seen from you, Mike M., it seems that you instead believe your point of view is so above anyone else’s that you can’t see you are essentially the pot calling the kettle black :). Right wing or left wing – if you can’t accept that others may have a different view and want to live their life accordingly (and have the right to and that maybe you can learn something from them), you are just being hypocritical. I moved here to live in a diverse, liberal neighborhood. I grew up and lived in the exact opposite for most of my life. I moved – I didn’t try to change everyone who lived around me or believe myself their savior.

          • Mike M

            Um, yeah. I believe in my views and I express them along with the logic behind them. I rarely get a rational counter argument. I am waiting but will not hold my breath. Can you stay on topic and off the ad hominem?

            You can’t, can you? Typical.

    • Bah

      If by “get over it” you mean we should shut up whenever liberals spout off, well, there’s this thing called “the First Amendment”. That’s the thing where you get to say what you think. Oh wait, I forgot, liberals want to ban that as “hate speech”.

      By your logic all those folks in Reston who put up their laughable yard signs should just “get over” the fact that Trump won, or move if they don’t like it.

      • Curious

        See my comment to Drip. I don’t think anyone should “get over it” if they disagree. We should be willing to open-mindedly hear all sides and come to a compromise. My “get over it” comment was again to show the hypocrisy of all those saying liberals should “get over” Trump’s election.

        • Mike M

          But you just asked Conservatives to leave Reston. You faulted me for trying to change minds.

          • Curious

            No, I didn’t. Re-read it. I asked why you didn’t just move, like I hear so many Conservatives tell liberals to do. I was simply asking why Conservatives don’t take their own advice. I don’t care if you are my next door neighbor! Just don’t call me names or get upset about the sign on my lawn.

          • Mike M

            Your words: Why don’t you just move if you don’t like it . BOOM!

            I don’t recall anyone telling Libs to move. It’s the other way around. Although I have asked those who express contempt for their country if I can help them pack their bags. You may recall less than a year ago so many Libs were threatening to move to Canada if, . . . well you know the rest. Embarrasing! (As if Canada wanted them.)

            I shall do as I please. Don’t tell me how to think.

          • Curious

            “Why don’t you just move” is a question, not a command. It was a GENUINE QUESTION. As in, if you hate us so much, why do you live here?

            And, I too, shall do as I please and don’t want to be told how to think. But, from the way you are presenting it, it seems as though you are saying that is not ok for me to want or do – because I am liberal. But, you can do whatever you want. I don’t get THAT logic.

          • Mike M

            I feel a duty to shine light upon the world so that you may see it for what it truly is! So that you can accept it and respect it. But scroll up. I already told you that with less exciting words.

          • Curious

            I rest my case.

          • Mike M

            Wise decision. When smoke is pouring out your engines, it’s a good idea to return to base.

          • Curious

            My OP was really out of genuine curiosity about the logic you and others who comment similarly have. The only answer I seem to have gotten so far is “our opinion is superior to yours and therefore we get to call names and demean you”. That doesn’t sound like you really want to have intelligent conversations. Or change anyone. Or open yourself up to change. It’s sounds much more like you just enjoy putting anyone down who doesn’t think like you and get some warped pleasure out of it.

          • Mike M

            Zzzzz.

          • Scott

            You could pretty much ask that genuine question of every leftist and the United States.

          • Scott

            You do understand that it’s big govt liberal leftists of Reston that made the rule about your sign right?
            A conservative pointing out the rule and asking it to be enforced with consistency is completely valid and logical.

          • Curious

            First, I’m not the person who’s sign had to be moved. I was speaking in more general terms. Second, being liberal doesn’t mean you agree with every single liberal-made decision. Third, isn’t wanting rules that you like enforced going against your principles of small government and freedom of speech? Or is it ok to against your own principles just when it suits you?

          • Scott

            I don’t think that’s how it works. Liberals have told us that very Republican and person who voted for Trump is a bigoted mysoginist so that makes you and ever Liberal a racist who policies oppress black people. I’m just applying liberal logic. Being consistent is the enemy of the left.

    • Scott

      The Constitution is not a political opinion. #sad

      • Curious

        Actually, the interpretation of it and whether it should be amended to reflect newer technologies and newer discoveries and research, is in fact, a political opinion.

        • Scott

          Your opinion that it’s open to opinion is wrong and the reason this country is in trouble.

          • Curious

            Such is your opinion.

          • Scott

            An attempt at wit is no substitute for knowledge.

            You are entitled to your opinion, just not to you own facts. They are different. You are an indictment to our education system and lack of civics courses. Good day.

    • The Constitutionalist

      What would likely ensue without us “far right” commentators is that Reston would go the way of all the other “far left” population centers. Pick one, I don’t care, then compare it in any metric to Reston and reply if that’s where you’d like to live.

      • Mike M

        Diversity, dude. Diversity.

        EXCEPT in political views! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

        #HHNHH

      • Curious

        See my other comments – I lived in a very “far right” town for most of my life and found it stifling and not a very nice place to live unless one conformed to exactly that culture. I’ve also traveled to “far left” cities and towns and found them much more welcoming but of course, there were problems there too and I can’t say I’d want to live in all of them. I don’t think any town should be all one way (again, my OP was to show hypocrisy), but making generalizations and assumptions because someone is “liberal” is no better. And all I see on these comments (not just for this article but many others) is a lot of hate spewed towards liberals. Rarely do I see thoughtful, open minded and respectful conversations.

        • The Constitutionalist

          Oooooh. So it’s almost as if you’re genuinely saying the best place to live is a place that blends the two, for both left and right to exist in harmony.

          These comments are a two way rifle range. The hate flows both ways. If you aren’t seeing it one way it’s because you need to take your political polarized glasses off.

          • Curious

            “To exist in harmony” – yes, that’s the ideal. Totally agree. While I have seen some hateful liberal comments on this site, at least lately, it absolutely seems like the majority of comments are hateful conservative comments. Plus I never believed two wrongs make a right – so, “they do it too” doesn’t sound like a good excuse (for either side).

        • drb

          OK, I have read the comments of you and those that you have engaged in here. My question to you is what do you consider right wing?

          • Curious

            I would say right-wing is generally anyone who holds traditional conservative views (minimal restrictions on guns, abortion bans, very minimal business regulations, strong immigration laws, “traditional” values, etc.). I don’t agree with many of the right-wing positions, but I think there’s a lot of room for healthy compromise and can’t say I’m far left-wing. I think most people fall somewhere on a scale.

            It’s the far-right that seems to be the most vocal and has the most hateful (and I would often say scary) comments. Far-right would be taking it to an extreme level – so, strong immigration laws actually means “hate anyone who’s family hasn’t lived long in the US and make sure they know it”. Traditional values doesn’t just mean we like our cute clean towns and hard work ethic – instead it means we hate anyone who doesn’t look and think like us. Believing in conservative values means that liberals are pansies that need a good kicking.

            What scares me about the far-right is the hate and assumptions about certain “minority” groups, including women though they are not exactly the minority. It’s the superiority complex and how that manifests (as in tiki torches and angry chants). It’s the inability to see or care how the other side feels and why they feel that way. And, for the record, I’m the first to criticize the riots and angry mobs of the far left. The entire philosophy of being extreme and blinded by your beliefs terrifies me and I don’t really understand the reasoning behind it.

          • drb

            Allow me share with you a few points. There are two groups. A social right or conservative and a political right or conservative. As with you many seem to not understand the political at all and confuse the social.

            Politically the far right is anarchist. Those we see on TV that call themselves anarchist are not political anarchist. An anarchist supports no government power or control. The far left is complete government control. This is what true communism would be.

            Socialism and Free Market Capitalism would a pretty fair way to divide. Each side of Socialism and Free Market Capitalism covers a great amount of territory with Socialism controlling centrally everything to controlling only the big things of people and business “for the good of the whole”. While Free Market Capitalists range from complete freedom of the markets with no restrictions to tight restrictions “for the good of the individual”.

            Socially Conservative or right wing is slow to no change in the social fabric. Fast social changes comes with upsetting human nature of wanting to remain constant with what we have become use to.

            What we on the right support politically is the Constitution because it restricts the central government control while allowing enough to protect the whole over all but allows for the social and political that derives by the social to be handled from the outside of the central government.

          • Curious

            That makes sense and it makes sense that some can be politically far right but not socially (as well as vice versa). It seems that the nuances of view points and different positions (and reasoning for them) gets lost in the bluster of ideologies and both the left and right get painted with a very broad brush. Plus, it doesn’t help that you have genuinely racist groups who seem to be trying to co-op far-right political view points and extreme left wing ideologies (or minority-only rules) trying to co-op progressives’. The reality is a lot of progressives DO in fact believe in few government regulations and restrictions but are very liberal socially and want EVERYONE to live freely (and safely). Thank you for being civil – these are the kinds of conversations we should be having :).

          • drb

            What political right view point would you say racist groups are advocating?

            You may wish to define what you mean by progressive politically since the progressive movement politically has it’s own history already.

            Today the term Progressive is being used as the label of the political left to escape the negative baggage that Liberal carries with it. There actually was a political party named the Progressive Party all the way back in 1948, which had ties, as would be expected, with the Socialist movement. As time went by Progressivism and Communism/Fascism became synonymous. So the term Liberal was adopted to hide their past history in order to have a new hearing of their beliefs and politics. Who could be against liberty after all? The term Progressive was used originally by the Socialists to give them a new beginning politically after WWII. Who could be against progress after all? Well the term Liberal has been successfully exposed as nothing more than a Socialist by any other name. Now the switch back to a term that very few people have memory of, Progressive.

          • Curious

            I agree the terms and constant changing of them are confusing and have historical weight – although I don’t think that the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals and progressives (at least the ones I know) think of themselves as tied to old political parties in any way. Or are even aware of how terms may have been used in the past.

            Also, when you say socialist – there is both economic socialism (with high taxes that are redistributed or spent by a central body) and regulatory or legislative socialism (controlling people’s movement, speech, etc.) – do you agree? Most of the “progressive or liberals” I know today are more for the former, and not so much the latter. I do think, that with automation, some type of economic socialism may be necessary for all of our survival in the US, but that’s a whole other discussion.

            As for the racists (real racists), most of them vote conservative and many also say they are “alt-right”, but yet they actually want to control what people think or do (and very particularly what certain people may think or do). For example, those that came to protest the Lee statue removal in Charlottesville – who are they to say it can’t be taken down? If the vast majority of people who live there want it taken down, and don’t want to look at a monument that they believe glorifies someone who wanted them to stay slaves and without rights, why are they not permitted to remove it without violence and mass protests by mostly outsiders to their town?

            Maybe we should all just forgo the labels and ask instead what each person’s individual beliefs are.

          • drb

            Not sure why my comment did not make it. Says pending

          • drb

            Still not able to make comment

    • ichrysso

      Easy – because this issue related to the Constitution and it transcends any majority or minority opinion. We don’t live in a democracy, but in a constitutional republic. The majority could easily say “take away rights from x,” but the constitution overrules and supersedes the majority and mob rule.

  • Scott

    Don’t like guns? Don’t buy them. Isn’t that the stance of leftists?

    Nope. It’s do whatever I say. No compromise. The 2nd amendment was inserted right behind the first for the explict reason of people like Ken plum.

  • Bah

    The author will never accept the fact that many of his constituents think that all the “common-sense gun safety measures” we need ALREADY EXIST, and no further restrictions are necessary.

    Also, we don’t trust you, and we know that you do, in fact, want to take away our guns – no doubt as a “common-sense gun safety measure”.

    • RestonAssurance

      I’m a liberal for the 2nd amendment. No liberal wants to take guns away from others except mentally ill people who should NOT have any. I know no one wants a mentally unstable person walking into an establishment with families and children or workers, to shoot as many people as they can. With that said, protect yourself as you see fit. Step up and protect others if ever needed.

      • Bah

        No liberal wants to take guns away from others except mentally ill people who should NOT have any.

        Uh huh.

        Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky says that an assault weapons ban
        is just the beginning. She also says that a complete ban on handguns
        could be possible through state and local action.

        NY Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview “Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the
        state could be an option.”

        Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr.
        and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

        Former NYC mayor Ed Koch said he wants to ban all guns for everyone except law enforcement.

        NYT front page op ed in Dec 2015 advocated gun confiscation.

        But maybe you don’t consider these to be liberals.

  • John Smith

    God what a garbage article and a joke of a human being.

    • Heh

      A comment that applies to every single op ed of his.

  • Mike M

    What if you presumed someone was ‘black’ or Muslim? Would that be [email protected]? If you are not consistent then you are a [email protected] because you have different standards for people based on [email protected]

    • Curious

      If we were referring to a rap concert or call for prayers or anything else that is mostly associated with a certain racial or religious culture, than of course, I would call it “black culture” or “Muslim religion”. Not sure what the point here is – that the far-right isn’t a typical white culture (at least in the US)?

      • Mike M

        So, you are a [email protected], Mr stereotyper. Lots of white kids go to rap concerts too. It is unfortunate for everyone who accepts such junk as music, but I digress.

        • Curious

          I didn’t say that every person who listens to rap is black. I said that it’s considered black culture because that’s it’s roots. Just like I’m sure not every conservative is white. Hopefully you can understand the difference.

  • Rational Reston

    I also get junk mail that I’m not interested in. But I just physically tear it up and shred it as opposed to using it as an excuse to tear down someone else’s ideas.

  • Paul

    Excellent headline Ken, you are right on point! Never Armed Enough!

  • MailMan

    Someone should print these comments out and mail them to Ken, or, email them to his AOL.com email address…

  • Reston Realist

    Ken, your choice of words are divisive and irresponsible. Was this your plan — come up with a wedge issue? If you are going to offer your opinion on an issue which you know will be divisive, at least present a well-reasoned argument. Rather, your words conjure up images of unreality to bolster your liberal position on gun control. I’ll plead one more time: RETIRE KEN, PLEEEASE!

  • RestonAssurance

    51 comments! Aiy, touchy subject.

  • Melting is the Answer

    Ken, would you rather us melt down the guns and make statues of Robert E Lee or melt down statues of Robert E Lee and make them into guns? Just curious.

  • The Constitutionalist

    “For the record, on guns, I simply think there should be rigorous background checks for owners for mental issues and previous criminal activity.”

    Never tried to buy a gun in VA have you?

    • Curious

      No, actually I haven’t. Not that I have any desire to buy one but I haven’t lived in VA very long to hear from anyone else’s personal experience of buying one. Kudos if VA has more rigorous checks than the states I know. I just wish all states had that.

  • Scott

    OH MY GOD. This is the scariest post I have ever scene. The ignorance is astounding and frightening. Let me ‘splain it to you. Democrats viewed black people as property – less than human. The Constitution had to be amended to make it absolutely clear to Democrats that black people were in fact, human, and not property.

    • Curious

      Was your motive here to point out that it used to be Democrats that defended slavery? I’m well aware. Or to try to make yourself sound so very educated and above me? I never once defended a party – only political views. Parties change for whatever suits them at the moment – they are a business. So, the constitution in its original form didn’t protect everyone. Obviously. Which was my point. We can’t just assume it’s an infallible document that solves all problems. It needs to grow along with the rest of us. Further, your comment still doesn’t explain why it took an amendment for women to vote, or why it took until the 1920s for Native Americans to be citizens (on the land they lived in before “we” did.

      • Scott

        SMH. The “point” Skippy is that people who share your ideology were the ones who treated people like sh*t, as sub-human, and required people who share my ideology to make it so clear, that even a Democrat couldn’t misconstrue it, that these groups were in fact people with rights. Is that clear enough?

        People are infallible. The document is sound. It is so sound that it realizes it is not perfect and allows itself to be changed, but only when a very high bar can be met. It is specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority (or “in a democratic way” as you put it). If you do not understand this core brilliance of our Constitutional Republic as outlined by the Constitution, then there is no purpose in even discussing these matters. All democracies descend into mob rule when 51% of the people can tell the other 49 what to do. This is why the US is not a democracy. I suggest you use a little bit of your Curiosity and read up on the topic.

        • Curious

          Again, democrats of the 1800s don’t equal my ideology or even the ideology of liberals today. But who is so uneducated? The document was written by fallible men. Therefore, it is inherently fallible. To say otherwise is simply illogical. Love the holier than thou attitude too. Just what brings us all together and makes society a great place to live. (That’s sarcasm in case you don’t get that). Though I get the feeling you don’t really want society to be a great place to live.

          • Scott

            Same ideology. Different plantation. The left is the racist element of society then and now. Then it was slavery. Today it’s low expectations and welfare that traps people in a cycle of govt dependency and a reliable voting block. It’s shameful.

  • Heh

    You remember the bloodbath and 600,000 dead that were required to “amend” the Constitution that time? Try to take guns away, and it’ll be like that squared and cubed. Surest way to get another civil war. Gun confiscation is proof, to the Right, that the Left no longer intends to even give lip service to the Constitution. At that point, there is no longer anything left to lose for the Right. Sure you want that?

    • Curious

      No one said anything about taking everyone’s guns away (at least I didn’t and the majority of people who aren’t on either extreme don’t say that either). But, you sound mentally ill, seriously, since your guns are more precious to you than innocent lives or trying to understand why the left may be afraid of them. It’s not to “hold you down” or some kind of grand conspiracy to control everyone, geez. It’s because, in the wrong hands, guns kill. And sometimes even in the right ones, guns still accidentally kill. They aren’t some sort of sacred object. They are lethal weapons and thus, the normal and sane people who want restrictions on them want such because they just don’t want to see people unnecessarily get hurt. We aren’t monsters who will gleefully kill as you seem to be.

  • NFL

    So now we know that Ken hates guns and confederate statues. I predict that this week he will applaud NFL players that disgraced our National Anthem over seas. This guy hates everything America stands for, lets keep re-electing him!

×

Subscribe to our mailing list