Gun Owners’ lives matter.

Really, this is just awesome.  Damned control freak head coaches…

83 Comments

Filed under Political Wankery, SEC Football

83 responses to “Gun Owners’ lives matter.

  1. Russ

    Well played. I’ll start the popcorn.

    Like

  2. Dean

    College campuses are a Constitution free zone.

    Like

  3. 92 grad

    Well. With a little thought one can make the distinction between constitutional rights being suppressed and protecting highly visible athletes from being social media fodder that fuels futile political debates, among other things.

    I understand what the guy wants to say but with the laws being what they are at campuses and the volatile nature of social media glaring at these kids 24/7, coaches are just trying to avoid problems. It’s like buying a new battery for your car every 6 months instead of fixing the alternator.

    Like

    • Dawgy1

      Let’s be very careful about suppressing Constitution Rights for any reason. When that starts that’s when for supposedly valid reasons your rights are taken away little by little. Proof is it’s happening now.

      Like

  4. No controversy here. Every conservative backer of the Second knows that its application is just for white folks…sorry I meant “honest citizens” and that restricting those freedoms from those less than “honest citizens” is encouraged: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

    Otherwise how does a gun stripping Governor become the iconical president for conservatives?

    Trump 2016! Make America Great for “Honest Citizens” Again!

    Someone should poll SEC golf coaches on the same issue. I’m guessing that they find their players to be “honest citizens” without any need of the restriction.

    Like

    • Mark

      Right! All 2nd amendment backers are racist! LOL!

      Like

      • That is the direct quote you pulled out of there? Genius!

        I know it would be harder to attempt to justify the Mulford act than to burn down the straw man you invented in your head, but why not give it a shot?

        Why was the second amendment disposable to republicans in California like Ronald Reagan when people of color were exercising it?

        Like

        • Mad Mike

          Because all politicians will change their position to whatever they think is politically expedient? Politics 101 dude. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now, taking away anyone’s rights is always bullshit. I’m what most people would call a “conservative”, though I’d hardly call myself that. I’m all for everyone that’s legally able to posses a handgun being able to carry one if they so desire. Your second sentence certainly seems to paint anyone like me as only wanting “white folks” to be the only ones with Second Amendment rights. I’m here to tell you you’re wrong on that point, although I am sure there are ignorant people that do believe that.

          Like

        • Got Cowdog

          I’ll bite.
          Because it wasn’t an (insert alternate ethnic group here) exercising their right to assemble and bear arms?

          Like

    • Mad Mike

      I just rolled my eyes so hard it reversed my LASIK.

      Like

      • Pretty typical non-substantive response. Try and use you words in a logical, coherent way. Just try. Give it a shot.

        Reagan ignored the 2nd in 1967 and ….. (fill in the blank).

        Like

        • Mad Mike

          Nice attack to try and get a rise out of me Derek, won’t work though. Please, see my response above where I called what Reagan did bullshit.

          Like

          • Ok. Now broaden it. Go beyond the subjective. Why did he do that bullshit and get away with it while being a hero of the right?

            Like

            • Mad Mike

              For the same reason Republicans nominated Mitt Romney in 2012, when his gubernatorial (see I know words) administration was, basically, the real architect of the AHA, or the same reason someone like Hillary, who clearly violated classified information laws, is the Democratic darling, or Trump who has made many statements in the past that were anything but conservative is Mr. GOP today, people generally don’t care what you did in the past as long as you tell them what they want to hear about the future. Politicians are scumbags Derek, they don’t care about you or I. All they want is to line their pockets with as much moneys possible. One way to do that is by “balkanizing” the populace. See, when you imply people like me are all a bunch of gun toting, sister humping, ignorant racists you’re demonizing and dehumanizing me, so then you don’t care what happens to me, then if the powers that be are screwing me over so what right? Conservatives are just as guilty of this as liberals. I knew you’d post a comment demonizing conservatives as soon as I read this post. That’s what my eye roll comment was about.

              Like

              • Politicians do what the voters want them to do. We are not the victims of the politicians. They dance on the strings we hold. The enemy is ourselves. If we decided that NAMBLA was as American as Apple pie the politicians to rush to say how pro-NAMBLA they are.

                So again, for the third time, why did the voters approve of the Mulford act when they would freak out if the same measure were taken today by a liberal and the motive wasn’t the black panthers but a so-called patriotic militia group?

                Like

                • Mad Mike

                  The voters in the sixties? Because in the sixties a lot more people WERE racist. Why wasn’t it an issue to eighties voters? Once again, that was, politically at least, ancient history to them, they were buying what Reagan was selling them at that moment in time. Do you not understand that I agree with you that the Milford Act was bullshit, and yes, racially motivated? What I’m disagreeing with you on is your broad generalization that everyone that’s a conservative gun owner is a racist that doesn’t think black people should be allowed to own guns.

                  Like

                  • Never suggested what you’re suggesting what I suggested. All I was suggesting is that race changes what ought to be race nuetral issues. If you think that we’ve progressed to the point that those same dynamics don’t exist, I’d say you’re wrong. The trump campaign is essentially George Wallace version 2. The former governor of Alabama wasn’t a major party nominee in 1968 or 1972 btw.

                    Like

                    • Mad Mike

                      Fair enough, but if that was your intent though why state it in a matter that is sure to inflame folks? Was your statement of “Every conservative backer of the Second knows that it’s application is just for white folks…” a sarcastic statement meant to mock people that truly believe that’s how conservatives think? If it wasn’t sarcasm, it would seem very reasonable, and perhaps likely, that someone who read what you wrote would think you’re attacking conservative gun owners in general?

                      Like

                    • It was intended to be mocking.

                      Like

    • I’m guessing Derek has MSNBC on 24 hours a day. Hell, he could work for them.

      Like

      • Mike Cooley

        Oh my. Derek shits in his hand and flings it, Mad Mike forces Derek to smear it all over himself. And it did so without much trouble. I want to thank you, Derek. That’s the second time today you have given me a good hardy laugh. The first time was when I got curious and checked out this blog of yours. I knew you needed to get laid but I had no idea just how bad until I saw that. You sad little man. Folks, do yourself a favor and check out Derek’s new blog. It is comic gold. Unintentionally comical, but that really just makes it better. Hey Derek, God bless America and screw you, Hillary, and Trump.

        Like

  5. The other Doug

    “It’s also worth mentioning that these young, fit guys just happen to be in prime citizen militia-capable condition. What a time to learn their birthright heritage and how to preserve it. So what a time for “progressive” dogma to suppress that.”

    lol.

    Like

  6. Mark

    Well played Senator! This quote is certainly all about control “… citing university policies against campus carry and arguing that there is no need for student-athletes to own them.”

    Since when does “need” have anything to do with rights? I wonder why one has to show an ID to buy a gun but not to vote? Why can we tax guns but not voting? Why would we say a kid is too immature to own a weapon but not too immature to vote? My beef? Some rights are apparently more constitutional than other rights depending on who you ask.

    Like

  7. Macallanlover

    Not sure the coaches aren’t setting themselves, and the university, up for a lawsuit down the road. Just let one of these citizens get blasted by someone and not have the option to defend themselves. It doesn’t matter how large, strong, or fit you are when you confront one of these nuts. And it no longer means you can just stay in “safe areas” and be worry free, violence occurs everywhere from what I see on my “local” news channel every day. (My local news seems like it is on another planet, thankfully.) I get the “gun free zone” idea for campuses but that assumes every one you encounter is a law abiding citizen. Ain’t happening, ever again. Traveling “naked” is pretty stupid these days.

    Like

    • Guess I’m dumb, then.

      Just like every other one, the 2nd Amendment isn’t an absolute right, by the way.

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        Certainly your right to decide how you travel and protect your home, family, and property. Mine to characterize how I feel when I see people lose their lives, or those of their family members and didn’t take necessary precautions. I am as saddened as anyone that our society has come to this, but I will not be a willing victim. I cheer every time I see a homeowner, storeowner, car driver make the bad guy pay for his actions, reactions of others may vary.

        Like

        • HW

          You and I may be the only ones that feel this way in this commie circle-jerk echo chamber.

          Like

        • Certainly your right to decide how you travel and protect your home, family, and property. Mine to characterize how I feel when I see people lose their lives, or those of their family members and didn’t take necessary precautions. I am as saddened as anyone that our society has come to this, but I will not be a willing victim. I cheer every time I see a homeowner, storeowner, car driver make the bad guy pay for his actions, reactions of others may vary.

          Mac, don’t get me wrong — I don’t have a problem in the world with you and yours carrying. I know that people like you will take reasonable precautions and are responsible gun owners.

          It’s all the other folks who concern me. And judging from the constant stories of misuse, there are plenty of them. I think society has the right to take steps to protect innocent people from the consequences of irresponsible gun operators, just as it does with those car drivers you mention. And I don’t see how that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment or what Scalia wrote in the Heller decision.

          Like

          • HW

            “Constant stories of misuse” Please explain, Im not sure what you’re referring to. “irresponsible gun operators” You mean criminals? What do you mean by an “irresponsible gun operator”? Thats a new one for me. Im picturing someone just firing aimlessly into the air without reason and people dying because of it. Haven’t heard of that happening. 99% of the deaths resulting from guns are of and by high school dropout gangbangers with no morals, no role models, no respect for authority, no ambition, and nothing to do but steal, do and sell drugs, and kill their rivals over a few dollars. What steps are you proposing be taken to protect people?

            Like

            • I’m not going to have a discussion with someone whose mind is already made up.

              There are regular stories of kids getting their hands on guns. Right now, you’ve got an attorney in Atlanta who claims he fell asleep in the car holding a loaded pistol and shot his wife to death by accident.

              I’ve worked in a prosecutor’s office and saw plenty of idiocy take place at bars. Yet gun rights folks think nothing of letting people carry in those places. Same for people with mental health issues.

              I doubt anything I propose would be satisfactory to you. So be it.

              Like

              • HW

                Well Im trying to have a discussion with someone who’s mind is made up, aren’t I?

                I think what you meant is an “irresponsible gun owner”. Ive got two young children and guns all over my house, but they are all locked up; they won’t get their hands on them until I say so.

                What that attorney claims is irrelevant.

                I have no problems with any business choosing to attempt to ban guns from entering their establishment by posting signs saying so. And I have no problem with the law stating no guns in bars. Just don’t be surprised when radical Islamic terrorists seek out those places, knowing that they are “gun free zones” in order to inflict maximum damage, as was the case with the largest mass shooting in our history in Orlando.

                You state that these are your concerns. But do you realize that the Obama Admin and the DOJ under Holder ran an operation that PURPOSEFULLY funneled guns into the hands of these irresponsible gun operators with the end goal being to use that to say that American guns got away from us and we need more gun control.

                We need to enforce the laws we have on the books right now before we start making new ones.

                Like

                • Well Im trying to have a discussion with someone who’s mind is made up, aren’t I?

                  Yes, because me agreeing with Mac on a right to bear arms is exactly like you labeling everyone you disagree with a communist.

                  Like

              • Got Cowdog

                I think you are being baited Senator.

                Like

          • Macallanlover

            And Senator, I am not saying people cannot prefer not to be around guns, not want guns in their house, or prefer there be some strict rules that gun ownership and competency enforced. The vast majority of gun owners are, and expect others, to handle guns in a responsible manner and for those who violate the laws regarding proper use of guns be dealt with harshly. But because we have to no way to enforce the gun laws we have, that is removing guns from those felons, drug lords, gangs, and terrorists who should not have guns, I have to dig in and say I need more, and better guns/ammo to defend me, and mine. I hate that. I never carried a weapon in my car, except long ago to hunt, until the last ten years. I never owned an AR15 until a few years ago, it never occurred to me to even want one.

            The world, and our society, has changed dramatically and it has caused me to change to keep a level playing field. It has also caused me to be more alert, and this more likely to react to unusual circumstances around me both in, and away from my home. I have to think, plan, and prepare very differently than I ever imagined just 20 years ago. It is alarming, and I can see how the changes have put into place situations none of us should have ever allowed to develop. But the genie is out of the bottle now, and we are all in for some shocking changes to our environment, on top of what has already been seen. I realize this isn’t the place for the discussion, but illegal guns cannot be removed and thus my comment that players being restricted by coaches could lead to some disastrous consequences. How do you make an open campus, with a downtown party atmosphere across the street safe for all the students, football players included? What about when they return to their neighborhoods in bad areas? I watch shootouts, kidnappings, and carjackings almost daily on my TV in Atlanta in frigging convenience parking lots while getting gas. You don’t have to be in bad areas after 2:00 AM to get caught up in a life or death situation. Once you almost had to put yourself in a bad situation to be at risk, now you don’t, and that is why simple suggestions to your kids are not good enough any longer. And we all hate it, but it is spreading.

            Like

      • Mike Cooley

        Is the first amendment an absolute right?

        Like

    • That’s why old western towns banned carrying guns. You could trust everyone to act right.

      Like

    • Mark

      When I was in high school, I bet every 3rd vehicle on campus had a gun in it. Society has certainly changed a lot.

      Like

      • PTC DAWG

        Exactly, displayed proudly in gun racks…nobody ever got shot either.

        Like

      • 92 grad

        And it hasn’t changed all that much. Politicians have resorted to using harsh, emotional lighting rod issues always escalating in order to gain attention. Its irresponsible how inflammatory they’ve gotten, intentionally rousing divisive content for personal gains. Notice, most of this critical campaign fodder vanishes November 10.

        Like

        • HW

          “Politicians ……..Its irresponsible how inflammatory they’ve gotten….”

          “If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun.” – Barack Hussein Obama

          Like

      • Macallanlover

        True, the old “guns don’t kill people etc., etc.” may aggravate people, but it is truism. Every (not exactly true) household in Switzerland has a gun, despite them not having an actual standing army, yet we rarely see a death in that country due to a gun shot. All about the people, not guns themselves.

        Like

        • But if you got shitty people, should you reign in the guns until the people become more, I don’t know, Swiss?

          BTW I’m not an advocate of abolishing guns. I just don’t think people should be allowed to have weapons that can kill lots of people in a short period of time. I have a gun for home protection, but I couldn’t kill 38 people at the mcdonalds with it.

          Why large clips and ak-47s are necessary is beyond me. The whole argument that we need them to take on the military is beyond stupid. Maybe it’s better if the citizenry could over through this government, but that shit ain’t happening, period.

          Like

          • ApalachDawg

            If you don’t know what large clips or AK47s are for, then you’ve obviously never been concerned about a corn/peanut crop then…

            Like

          • Got Cowdog

            To your last point, the two Wiki links you posted are very good examples of this.
            You can have all the guns you want and you can wear them outside your pants. But if you and your associates congregate and decide to self govern, or challenge the existing government with your weapons they will be taken away from you as well as your civil liberties.
            Again, this is overly simplified, but is the root of the 2nd amendment argument.
            History homework question: What is different about the Black Panthers/ Mulford Act situation and the Bundy/ BLM confrontation? Were the government responses appropriate and why?

            Like

            • Totally different situation. The Bundy crew violated the law. They were never arrested for possession of guns. Their arrests was for different conduct. The existing law was not changed to criminalize their behavior.

              The black panthers were exercising their rights under the existing law. The law was changed so that they couldn’t excercise those rights.

              This is an apples and Cadillacs comparison.

              Like

              • Got Cowdog

                Could you say both groups were acting as in the fashion of a militia?

                Like

                • Yes. Militias can act within or outside the law though. When white militias abide the law, they are left alone. When white militias violate the law they are punished. When black militias act within the law, they change the law.

                  The congress did not pass a law that said that a gun cannot be carried within x no. of feet of a cow so as to make the bundy protest illegal. That’s essentially what the Mulford Act did.

                  Like

                  • Got Cowdog

                    Exactly. But if a white activist group had done what the Black Panthers did in 1967 the law likely would have been changed in the same manner.
                    If an ethnic group occupied a federal facility the outcome would have been the same as well.
                    What about the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco?
                    My point is that even though the 2nd implies that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, you are not allowed to act as one. I don’t think it’s a race issue, it’s a control issue.
                    So no, Derek, you cannot have an ICBM in case the Russians attack, and I can’t have my own army. But I can put a gun on my hip and walk around town without fear, because of fear, if I choose to do so.

                    Like

                    • I see white guys carrying assault rifles into chipotle. If there is a legislative response it’s a green light. I disagree with how these issues are dealt with in this country. It isn’t race neutral.

                      Like

          • Dawgy45

            “I have a gun for home protection, but I couldn’t kill 38 people at the mcdonalds with it” Actually, you probably could. The Virginia Tech shooter carried 2 pistols (a .22 and a 9mm) – both were loaded with state compliant, reduced-capacity, 10-round magazines. He killed 30+ people.

            “Why large clips and ak-47s are necessary is beyond me.” Why? Because sometimes good people have to protect themselves from large numbers of bad people (such as the Korean store owners during the 1992 L.A. riots).

            Like

          • HW

            “reign in the guns”

            What in Gods name are you talking about? You might want to think that through. What is it that you are proposing and what is the end result going to be? Say all the manufacturers stopped producing guns right now. Then say we banned all guns, started confiscating what we could and told people to turn them in. You think the gangbangers in Chicago and LA and Memphis and all those wonderful MS-13 folks from Central America that are flooding in are going to march up to the courthouse or wherever and hand them over? What part of WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS don’t you understand? Would you feel safer if you had to turn in that gun you said you keep in your home for protection?

            Like

            • What part of logic don’t you understand?

              When did I say ban all guns or confiscate anything?

              I’m simply proposing reasonable regulations. Machine guns are regulated. Explosives are regulated. Fucking cars are regulated. It’ll be ok. You can still protect your home and your person and your property without have offensive weaponry.

              What part of that is too hard to understand?

              Like

  8. AusDawg85

    No wonder Corch is so successful. He clearly never had a problem with his players owning…shooting…killing…with guns.

    Like

  9. HW

    If Kirby Smart is one of the coaches that ban players from owning guns, its just one more reason he should be fired.

    Like