Cory Maye is the poor bastard who is in prison, because the SWAT team blasted into his house, *the wrong house*, without warning, and he shot a cop. He got rail-roaded with a murder charge. There is some evidence which raises the implication that the cops lied about exactly what happened, although it is clear they stormed the wrong half of the house.

So a sign ‘Don’t burgle here: the dealer is next door’ might have been useful, if only to point the ignorant storm-troopers in the correct direction.

I always have to respond, ‘Probably not. If I did, you’d never learn the lesson…’

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully.

His strict interpretation of these documents is popping eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun owners” and require them to pay a $500
fee to the state.

Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun

Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, it is a clear mandate to do so.

He believes universal gun ownership was
advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals.

Vermont’s constitution states explicitly “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” & those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.”

Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so they are capable of responding to “any situation may arise.”

Under the bill, adults who choose to not own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state.

“There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state.

And it’s currently the only state allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

Legal Guns are used an AVERAGE of ONE and a HALF MILLION times a year to STOP low lifes from committing a crime.

In MOST of these cases, the gun is NOT even fired and in MANY cases the gun is not even pointed toward the criminal.

I have used a gun to prevent a crime and so as an former lady friend.

Quote:
“Gardea said reading about that case was one reason he decided to erect a sign outside his home stating, “Please don’t pull a home invasion here. Indoor buds are next door at #116. See Alan.”

Ironically, today’s the day that FeedRinse accidentally sent me the whole VC feed, instead of just Kerr’s and Elwood’s posts — now I see what I’ve been missing!

(Let’s hope that FeedRinse starts working again. Pronto.)

Ignoto Fiorentino: Just goes to show that all kinds of people, with different views on gun regulation and rights, can harbor violent revenge fantasies…
I’m more concerned about such attitudes when they’re held by people who have actually managed to get themselves in possession of deadly weapons…

Are there any among the commenters here who do not own deadly weapons? I cook with several deadly weapons, including a nice cleaver I bought in a Chinese market. I also drive a deadly weapon to work every day.

And I still have my archery tackle from college, though I’d probably want to check the bow for wear, and maybe replace the limbs before using it.

I think everyone here, fantasizing or not, could find plenty of things perfectly suited to killing people, just rummaging around their homes.

Randy: But just goes to show you that guns are still very dangerous even when the people who owned them are trained.

This is a good reason why all children should also be trained. The NRA’s Eddie The Eagle program is a goods place to start, but it has been hysterically opposed by the education community, and not employed. At the primary school level, the teaching points are simply:

If you see a gun:

1. Don’t touch it.

2. Leave the area.

3 Tell an adult.

I drill the grandkids in that periodically.

jack burton:
yeppers… hostile comments such as If I neighbor put up a sign like that, I would consider buying a gun just so I could shoot him.”and…the sign itself also effectively reads: “I’m a jerk: Please vandalize my house and pretty shrubbery.””sure do show the hostility of the gun rights advocates…Oh…wait… I’m sorry. Those were some of the comments made by the other side. My bad…

Just goes to show that all kinds of people, with different views on gun regulation and rights, can harbor violent revenge fantasies, and that Eugene’s fake photo managed to provoke people on both sides . I’m more concerned about such attitudes when they’re held by people who have actually managed to get themselves in possession of deadly weapons, even though we can agree that only a very tiny proportion of people with such attitudes ever act on them. But my point is that “humor” that panders to such fantasies is not good for public political discourse.

Oren: Please don’t judge the legal cause by the loudest idiots. Thanks in advance.

And please don’t advocate the legal case in ways that forseeably result in stirring up the loudest idiots. Subtle demagogy is still demagogy.

Laura(southernxyl): I was thinking of Cory Maye. He didn’t have a known gang house — the guy on the other side of the duplex was thought to be a drug dealer.

He’s the guy that was shot in a drug raid on the wrong house, right? I agree it was a screwup and a tragedy. But putting om my metaphorical flak jacket and SWAT helmet, if I thought I was going into a place with armed criminals, as they did with Cory Maye, I’d be going in at full speed and at high alert. Armed citizen or not, the cops don’t set out to shoot someone, but they powerfully don’t want to give the perps any advantage of warning. Shock and surprise save lives. The victim probably would not have been shot if they threw a stun bomb into his bedroom before startling him.

I’m pretty sure the State of Virginia has that sign up, by the bridge going into DC.

Randy: of course, we can’t legislate or expect 100% safety. I have no solutions, but people need to be aware that guns do in fact sometimes kill or injure innocent people.

So do knives, matches, antifreeze, and a host of other household dangers.

I wonder if there’s some anti-knife group that monitors how many kids are killed annually by playing with knives.

And it would be amusing if this guy’s neighbor put up such a sign.

And I’m sure that the actual numbers of injured may be small, but they still exist.

Some 2006 unintentional fatality numbers from WISQARS:

Firearm 642
Pedestrian 6162
Pedal Cyclist 926
Poisoning 27531
Drowning 3579


Every death is a tragedy, whether from a hard hit baseball or hunting accident, but guns are just one of the risks out there. You want to be careful with the bicycle, boat, and pool as well.

I got the numbers by going here and selecting individual causes. There are easier to use reports, but this was the first one in the list.

If you want to keep your household disarmed, that’s your business. If you are engaged in efforts to disarm my household, that’s my business. The sign-posting neighbor’s beef is not that his neighbor is unarmed, but that he supports bans.

Using resources to increase knowlege in the dangers of bathtubs would do more good than using those same resources to convince people that guns are more dangerous than the currently believe.

Bruce Boyden: “Attention Police: be aware that my next door neighbor is armed.”

In my neck of the woods that would result in invitations to go to the range.

Floridan: Here’s another hilarious sign: ” Parents! Before you let your children play with my next door neighbor’s children, be aware that the father keeps loaded guns in the house.”

And now I have to organize a shooting class for a bunch of kids. (Actually, I’d refer them to the excellent 4-H Shooting Sports program.)

All points are true. Nonetheless, all the best precautions can and will fail from time to time. And I’m sure that the actual numbers of injured may be small, but they still exist.

of course, we can’t legislate or expect 100% safety. I have no solutions, but people need to be aware that guns do in fact sometimes kill or injure innocent people.

Sandy MacHoots:
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what exactly I missed.I took the sign to be a political statement about the desirability of having an armed populace, not a criminal deterrant applied to a specific home.Where I live it’s common to have signs that say, “Warning:Burglars will be shot.Survivors will be shot again.”The additional statement is plainly there (at least to me) to draw the distinction between a place known to be armed and a place known to be disarmed. Am I not understanding your point?

I don’t see that a sign so fraught with personal hostility can be seen as a mere political statement. You want to make a political statement, make a political statement. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and the elaboration of superficially rational arguments for why bullying is justified in this instance comes off as creepy. In a free society there’s no reason to answer advocacy of a point of view (even a highly objectionable one) with personal aggression.

The implicit thread running through all this is that anti-gunners are terrible, terrible people who richly deserve whatever the criminal element can throw at them. A true patriot – a person who loves his country and its people -would never wish for anything but an across-the-board reduction in criminal violence against his fellow citizens, regardless of their personal characteristics or beliefs. This thread shows that for too many gun rights advocates, it’s not about freedom and security as much as it is about an adolescent fantasy of shooting it out with the bad guys while wusses eat dirt.

I’m dismayed but very far from surprised that although I am pro-Second Amendment, I have been taken for a gun control advocate because I didn’t join in to wish death at the hands of criminals on gun controllers and their children. Even as a joke!

This is a perfect example of why many pro-RKBA people like myself keep far, far away from actually existing gun culture.

Ignoto Fiorentino: What’s not funny are all the hostile and aggressive gun rights advocates posting comments on this blog, or that Eugene thinks it’s a good idea to stoke their hostility.

yeppers… hostile comments such as

“If I neighbor put up a sign like that, I would consider buying a gun just so I could shoot him.”

and

“…the sign itself also effectively reads: “I’m a jerk: Please vandalize my house and pretty shrubbery.””

sure do show the hostility of the gun rights advocates…

Oh…wait… I’m sorry. Those were some of the comments made by the other side. My bad…

And it is based on a cartoon which had the same sign.

What’s not funny are all the hostile and aggressive gun rights advocates posting comments on this blog, or that Eugene thinks it’s a good idea to stoke their hostility.

Please don’t judge the legal cause by the loudest idiots. Thanks in advance.

wolfefan: It’s Morton Grove, Illinois and Kennesaw, Georgia. If Kennesaw can require heads of households to buy guns (and there are a lot of exemptions), could it require them to buy health insurance?

Both Federal and State Constitutions specify militias. Therefore the State or Feds can require those who are defined as being in the militia to be armed. There is no authority to force people to buy health insurance. Where does the gov get the authority to force people to buy health insurance?

Randy: And you would think that a cop, of all people, would know how to properly house a gun. But just goes to show you that guns are still very dangerous even when the people who owned them are trained.

It doesn’t show that — it shows that guns are still very dangerous even when the people who own them are cops, who are notoriously ill-trained when it comes to firearms. A friend of mine once had to go to police station to retrieve a gun that had been misappropriated. “Don’t worry,” the desk sergeant told him. “We emptied it.” My friend worked the slide and popped one more cartridge out of the chamber.

EMG: Sandy MacHoots, read the rest of my comment. You’re assuming that the guy with the sign is a good judge of others’ characters, a prudent man. But the sign itself proves he’s not.

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what exactly I missed. I took the sign to be a political statement about the desirability of having an armed populace, not a criminal deterrant applied to a specific home. Where I live it’s common to have signs that say, “Warning: Burglars will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.”

The additional statement is plainly there (at least to me) to draw the distinction between a place known to be armed and a place known to be disarmed.

Am I not understanding your point?

I challenge anyone interested in the subject to read all those amicus briefs and see which side makes more sense, when essentially every argument ever made is considered in one small stack of documents.

Randy: Jack: “Perhaps your children had a different experience.”My cousin did. When he was about eight, he went to a friend’s house, whose dad is a cop. They were playing, and the friend said, hey, I know where my dad keeps his gun. Wanna see it? Cousin says yes, and friend gets the gun. They started playing, and yup, friend accidently shot my cousin in the face. Had the bullet gone just a bit further in, or just to the left or right, he would have been dead. Fortunately, he didn’t die, but did require several years of physical and mental therapy to get his brain working properly. Today, you’d never know it — no scars on the face, and perfectly normal. (This happened back in the mid-80s). He was lucky.And you would think that a cop, of all people, would know how to properly house a gun. But just goes to show you that guns are still very dangerous even when the people who owned them are trained.

I am glad your cousin was not hurt any further than he was but you bring up several points…

1) You can’t legislate against foolishness or incompetency.

2) Any parent owning firearms is responsible for ensuring that their kids are “firearm proofed.” A child as young as eight can know the difference between right and wrong, and yes, even with poor impulse control teaching them is still feasible. It’s when guns are hidden, not talked about, and exotic, that they gain the lure of the forbidden.

3) Kids are going to learn about guns… from TV… from the street/friends… or from a responsible adult. Even if a parent abhors guns it is their responsiblity that their children learn more than just “guns are bad.” My kids were taught exactly what to do in that same circumstance as your cousin… and it didn’t involve staying there to play. There was nothing “special” or enticing about a gun that would be powerful enough to overcome what they were taught. I’m not a super-parent… but I knew enough to know that I wanted my kids to really be safe… and not just “hopin’ and wishin’”

4) And while any child being hurt by any means can be a tragedy to the community and families involved… the truth of the matter is that there are 80 million homes with guns in them… and each year there are less than 50 children across the nation who are acciddently injured by one. That is about .001 percent of the homes, and is a record that is much safer than bikes, skateboards, swimming pools, and many other common household items.

I’ve little respect for the anti-gun crowd as they are illogical, uninformed, irrational & selfish!

Yes, we cannot possibly respect people whose views disagree with ours! I’m embarrassed to support gun rights in league with this kind of idiocy.

And you would think that a cop, of all people, would know how to properly house a gun. But just goes to show you that guns are still very dangerous even when the people who owned them are trained.

This is an exception. I live in a neighborhood of cops and they all keep their guns in a combination safe. The last thing any sane personal wants is a robber shotting them with their own weapon.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by I_Am_Addie: Funny Sign http://ff.im/-aHRhn...

The decision to not have a firearm at home doesn’t mean the homeowners are defenseless. It simply means they don’t happen to have a specific tool in which to defend themselves.

The difference though, between anti-gunners and pro-gun people like myself are that I have no desire to force people to own something they have no desire to do (and yes, I disagree with the Kennesaw law).

I have no moral issue with the sign at all insofar as the concept that the gun banning neighbor is simply getting exactly what he’s demanding. When the law is that you cannot own a firearm, then the criminals will have less chance of ballistics assisted perforation when robbing houses. The sign is meant to illustrate to the neighbor why that is a bad idea.

Is it in good taste? How would I know? It’s just a picture (and a photoshopped one at that). I don’t know the backstory. If I lived next to Paul Helmke, I’d be more than inclined to put one up myself. But just a neighbor who badmouths my gun collection? No.

As for the kids thing – I have two wonderful daughters, 4 & 7. I have guns in the house. My girls can recite to you exactly what to do if they find one, be it here or at a friend’s house. You see, I love my children so much that I teach them to avoid as many dangers as I can. Don’t play with knives or matches, don’t talk to strangers, stay away from poisons, and if you find a gun, do not touch it, leave the room, and tell an adult.

What I don’t do is pretend that there aren’t knives, matches, poisons, strangers, or guns and hope they’ll never run into them.