“Precious” Guns

By Tyler Montague

In April of 2007, Seung-Hui Cho walked onto Virginia Tech’s campus and killed 32 people, and wounded another 25. In this “gun-free” zone, none of the students and faculty were armed, and thus all were subjected to the killer’s lack of mercy.

Senator Gould would like to prevent that scenario via SB1474, which would allow concealed weapon permit holders to carry on state college campuses.

In response, Senator Gallardo (D) posted this photo of Seung-Hui Cho, with the following comment:

“Coming soon to a university or community college near you….. Or someone like him. (No to guns on campus.)”

So…allow good citizens to carry a weapon, and suddenly we’ll have gun violence? I’ve decided that some liberals subscribe to what I call the “Lord of the Rings” gun theory. It’s when an otherwise good person spends too much time around his “precious” weapon, he is overtaken by the scary, evil, aura emitted from all guns, until finally he spontaneously combusts into a violent outburst and shoots up a nursing home. A good gun-free zone can prevent this from happening, of course…at least until all guns are melted down and all violence is thereby eliminated from society.

Sigh. Let’s take it from the top: Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone at the time of the massacre, folks. Yet somehow that crazed murderer had the gall to disregard their campus rules. Imagine that.

Over and over again, gun restrictionists fail to acknowledge a simple truth: That anyone who would murder another human isn’t someone who worries about obeying gun laws. They’ve already blown through trivial inhibitions like honoring gun-free zones and coming to a full and complete stop at intersections. They’re up to the “murder” level of badness. Everything below killing on the hierarchy of wrongdoing is fair game for them. Why isn’t this obvious by now? Libs, please, please try to comprehend this. Unless you enforce your “no-weapons zone” with armed guards and a metal-detector, like they do at the courthouse, your law merely disarms law-abiding people.

At least ASU President Michael Crow brings up other concerns about the proposed law that are logical: He worries that armed-but-untrained individuals could make poor decisions under stress, leading to errant gunfire that could hit innocent bystanders. In his view, these risks outweigh whatever benefits may come from armed students or staff. This is a reasonable concern, although there is plenty of data to suggest Crow’s concerns are contradicted by evidence.

I think the biggest threat to our right to keep and bear arms is an uninformed public and activist judiciary, panicked by highly publicized crimes with guns. (The media rarely seems to publicize all the cases where people defend themselves with guns. I should confess that, “Criminal fled after gun-owner pulled out a weapon,” isn’t as dramatic of a headline as a multiple homicide.) The anti-gun crowd would love to exploit an incident on campus involving a mistake by a weapons permit holder. To address President Crow’s concerns, they ought to add a little more practical training to the CCW permit process. I took a 2-day CCW course at Gunsite, where students fired nearly 500 rounds and received more initial weapons training than many new police officers. This should become the standard.

Even as it exists, the concealed weapons permit process has done an adequate job at vetting and training people. Upon introduction of the laws enabling concealed firearm carry, and many other laws favoring 2nd Amendment freedoms, we’ve heard predictions of apocalyptic violence. None of it has occurred. There is no data to support the claims of anti-carry arguments. In fact, violent crime has dropped significantly, and there is a lot of data to suggest that criminals’ fear of armed citizens has something to do with it.

And all arguments aside, there’s the Constitution. While many begrudgingly concede the right to “keep” arms, they often forget the words “and bear.”

So, should the legislature vote for S.B. 1474? Not so fast.

At ASU, for example, according to S.B. 1474, President Crow gets to determine whether or not to allow guns into campus buildings. If he decides not to, as he already indicated, then ASU has to provide lockers outside each building for weapons. An armed student would carry her gun from her car to her first class, lock it in a locker, retrieve it and be armed on the sidewalk for a few minutes while she walks to her next class, where she has to then deposit the weapon in another locker, and so on. Completely impractical.

The initial estimate from the schools is approximately $13 million dollars to build the lockers, and then an ongoing $3 million annual cost to hire campus police to babysit them. That’s a lot of money to waste in order to keep students and staff just as unprotected as they were before.

The bill also makes lawmakers look out of touch by working on a problem that few voters rank as a priority, while unemployment is high, the housing bubble still stings, and our K-12 education ranks near the bottom.

So, either pass a bill that lets people protect themselves, while addressing legitimate safety concerns, or don’t pass a bill at all. We don’t have money and political capital to waste on a bill that doesn’t actually achieve anything. Vote no on S.B. 1474.

Tyler Montague is a gun-owning, SUV-driving, meat-eating Republican from Mesa, who loves this state and wants good policy.


Comments

  1. Excellent comments, Tyler. It would appear that your support of our treasured 2nd Amendment (which allows all other Amendments to be realized), is an indication of a good upbringing.

    • Yeah, you would think that a strong position on the 2nd Amendment would be due to a good upbringing, however Tyler would like to have us forget that him and his daddy played major roles in bringing down Sen. Russell Pearce, the man who spearheaded Constitutional Carry for this state. Sorry, but talk is cheap, and no amount of rhetoric is going to cover that fact!

      • Conservative American says

        “And Russell Pearce stood up before the voters and convincingly made the case that he is a bully who exerts anger where we need influence; who exploits fear where we need thought.” – Tyler Montague

        • That is an awesome quote! Goes up there with…”Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

          • Conservative American says

            No, TBone, it is a quote based upon shallow name-calling, just the right level for you.

            Have a nice day, TBone! 🙂

      • Conservative American says

        Hey, not everyone gets featured in a Phoenix New Times article by STEPHEN LEMONS! Tyler Montague does though!

        “Bad Mormon: Mitt Romney’s Anti-Immigrant Stance Doesn’t Jibe with LDS Teachings
        By Stephen Lemons
        published: February 23, 2012”

        “Felix’s Anglo pal Tyler Montague is a lifelong Mormon and attends a nearby ward, where he chaperones a young men’s group. He’s fluent in Spanish, having served his mission in Chile when he was 19.”

        “It’s there where he, like many missionaries to Latin countries, learned to love the culture, food, and people. He’s one of the Mormons who helped recruit Lewis to run against Pearce in the recall.”

        “I’m not an open-borders [advocate],” he says. “But we could totally solve the problem without ripping apart families.”

      • Conservative American says
      • Tyler Montague says

        I have no regrets about supporting a different candidate other than Russell Pearce for LD 18’s seat, Talmage Pearce, aka “p2012p.” And thank you, Conservative American, for posting those quotes from me, as I stand fully behind those statements as well.

        What’s your point?

        • Conservative American says

          My point? My point is that you were featured in ANOTHER Phoenix New Times article by STEPHEN LEMONS!

          “Russell Pearce Challenger Jerry Lewis Takes on the Critics, Swears Off All Freebies
          By Stephen Lemons
          Fri., Sep. 23 2011 at 8:47 AM”

          “But as pro-Lewis Republican Tyler Montague explains in the introduction to this e-mail from Lewis to LD 18 voters, he and his father, Republican attorney Dea Montague, recruited Lewis to run. And as Lewis points out, he was initially not eager to do so.”

          http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/09/russell_pearce_challenger_jerr_1.php

          How is it that STEPHEN LEMONS of the Phoenix New Times seems so fond of mentioning and quoting you considering that you claim to be a Conservative but STEPHEN LEMONS and the Phoenix New Times are liberal? How is that, Tyler?

          • Tyler Montague says

            That’s a completely unserious point, ConAm. What if the New Times, or the New YORK Times for that matter, quoted Ronald Reagan? Are you saying that if a generally liberal publication quotes a conservative on some matter, then that person is no longer a conservative? Please.

            • Tyler Montague says

              In fact, here IS a quote from me printed by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/russell-pearce-arizonas-anti-immgration-champion-is-recalled.html?pagewanted=all

              And I stand behind that one as well.

              • Conservative American says

                I don’t give a rat’s patootie if you stand behind what you have said. That may mean something to you but it doesn’t mean a thing to me.

                How is it, Tyler, that at least twice, the liberal STEPHEN LEMONS and the liberal Phoenix New Times have used statements about your activities and/or quotes from you to promote their liberal agenda? How is that, Tyler?

            • Conservative American says

              YOU say that it is an “unserious point”. I say that it is a VERY serious point, Tyler.

              Tyler wrote: “What if the New Times, or the New YORK Times for that matter, quoted Ronald Reagan?”

              We’re not talking about Ronald Reagean or the New York Times, Tyler. We’re talking about you, STEPHEN LEMONS and the Phoenix New Times, Tyler.

              How is it, Tyler, that the liberal STEPHEN LEMONS and the liberal Phoenix New Times are able to use information about and quotes from Tyler Montague fo promote their liberal agenda? How is that, Tyler?

              • Is this getting weird to anyone else? Servative Erican, you appear to have an obsession with “Tyler” (if that is his real name). You just set the new World Record for “In Print Use of the Name Tyler”. I’d suggest a little relaxation. Maybe even some drug use (the legal kind).

              • Conservative American says

                If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them. Very simple, TBone.

              • Of course “Tyler” is his real name. To be more specific, Tyler Montague, VP, Senior Operations Consultant at Bank of America – your one stop illegal alien Visa and Mastercard center. B of A, where all the conservatives bank and our motto is “let’s stop tearing families (especially at them there drop houses) apart.”

          • Uh, CA…..Lemons has also written about, spoken to and quoted Shane Wikfors.

            You’ve heard of him, right?

            • Conservative American says

              Nice try, Rob. The difference is that STEPHEN LEMONS was going after Shane, attacking a Conservative point of view.

              With Tyler Montague, STEHPHEN LEMONS was using the words and deeds of Montague to SUPPORT his liberal positions and the liberal positions taken by the Phoenix New Times.

              I know that’s deep for you, Rob, but do try to wrap your mind around it. 😉

              • “First off, I wish to commend Shane Wikfors of the Sonoran Alliance blog for removing an article by the Sonoran News’ Linda Bentley claiming “massive voter registration fraud” in the petitions recalling state Senate President Russell Pearce.”

                “I raised the issue with Wikfors during a back and forth in the comments section to a blog item he posted recently, and though Wikfors was skeptical, he removed the item, in which Bentley smears American citizen and Mesa resident Benita Lantigua, reveals her address, and suggests her as the main example of the “fraud” Bentley claims in her story.”

                http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_fave_reporter.php

                Let me know if that’s too deep for you, ok, Ace?

              • Conservative American says

                Sonoran Alliance Discovers Anonymity Not Always So Great, After All
                By Ray Stern Thu., Jan. 22 2009 at 2:32 PM

                Shane Wikfors, who goes by the handle of “DSW” on the blog site, wrote his article becaues he was concerned about the “ugly” things being written about the Arizona Republican Chairmans race by anonymous authors. It’s humorous to watch Wikfors do the mental gymnastics required to justify his blog’s use of pseudonyms, while simultaneously dissing the anonymous writings that offend him.

                http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/01/sonoran_alliance_discovers_ano.php

                Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
                By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM

                It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience. Like a beard on an alligator, you know it’s fake from jump.

                That’s why I cracked a smile today while perusing far-right wing blog Sonoran Alliance, where moral relativist-in-charge Shane Wikfors is demanding an apology from Carolyn Cooper, a supporter of the recall of state Senate President Russell Pearce.

                http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php

                Let me know if that’s too deep for you, ok Ace?

        • Tyler, don’t even think about having political aspirations in this state, your name is Mudd!

          • Tyler Montague says

            Talmage, did you use two d’s for emphasis?

            • Conservative American says

              ROFL! Hey, Einstein, did you also notice the upper case “M”? The phrase has been used with reference to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd who gave medical care to John Wilkes Booth after he assassinated President Lincoln.

              “After Booth shot President Lincoln on April 14, 1865, he broke his left leg while fleeing Ford’s Theater. Booth met up with David Herold and together they made for Virginia via Southern Maryland. They stopped at Mudd’s house around four o’clock in the morning on April 15. Mudd set, splinted and bandaged Booth’s broken leg, and arranged for a carpenter, John Best, to make a pair of crutches for Booth.”

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Mudd

              This ruined Mudd’s reputation. Hence the phrase, “Your name is Mudd”.

              So the problem is your lack of knowledge, Tyler, not a misspelling on the part of p2012.

              Have a nice day, Tyler! 🙂

              • truconserv says

                Wrong! Before you go about accusing others of a lack of knowledge, perhaps you should display some yourself.

                If Dr. Mudd were the origination of the phrase then why is the first recorded usage of the term from 1823, some 40 years before Lincoln was assassinated?

                “The Oxford English Dictionary, in an entry revised in December 2007, finds the first example of the phrase from 1823, more than four decades before Lincoln was assassinated. Moreover, the term appeared in a British book, A Dictionary of the Turf. This was written under the pen name of John Bee by John Badcock, a man about whom so little is known that even his date and place of birth and death are unknown. It’s thought he was born about 1810 and died about 1830. A short life then, but one full of writings about horses and riding. His entry in the slang dictionary reads: “Mud, a stupid twaddling fellow. ‘And his name is mud!’ ejaculated upon the conclusion of a silly oration, or of a leader in the Courier.”

                “It’s not from the family name Mudd but from the wet sticky earth stuff. It builds on a slang sense of mud recorded in the previous century. A book called Hell Upon Earth of 1703 includes the word in the sense of a simpleton or a fool. In turn, this probably derives from another that’s two centuries older still, in which mud meant the lowest or worst part of something, the dregs.”

                http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nam1.htm

                Most of us learned this in the sixth grade …

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

                TC wrote: “If Dr. Mudd were the origination of the phrase…”

                Now pay attention, TC. I want you to read very, very carefully. Are you paying attention? Good!

                Where did I say that Dr. Mudd what the ORIGINATION of the phrase? Do you have that TC? The key word is ORIGINATION. Are you capbale of grapsing that or is that too fine of a distiction for you?

                Yes, the expression, “His name is mud”, WAS around much earlier BUT the expression, “His name is Mudd”, came into popular use AFTER the incident with John Wilkes Booth. It is a more modern reference which evolved because of historical events.

                So there is nothing incorrect about using the spelling that p2012p used and the comment by your hero, Tyler Montague, springs from ignorance.

                “His name is mud is a derogatory phrase used to suggest that someone is out of favour or has offended his or her peers. This has nothing to do with wet earth; the correct spelling is Mudd and refers to Dr Samuel Mudd, a country doctor in the USA. In ignorance as to what had happened he treated the broken leg of one John Wilkes Booth shortly after Booth had assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in a Washington theatre in 1865. Booth had had a horse waiting for him outside the theatre; he made his escape to the nearby countryside and was treated by Dr Mudd. The next day, on hearing of the assassination, Dr Mudd informed the authorities that he had treated Booth. In spite of Dr Mudd’s ignorance of the events at the time he gave the treatment, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Truth eventually prevailed and Dr Mudd was pardoned in 1869. However the public never forgave him and it was only in the 1970s was he actually declared innocent and the family name cleared.”

                http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/17.html

                “The good doctor had his day in court, both military and civil, and despite the concerted efforts and good intentions of his defenders–his name is still Mudd.”

                http://civilwarstudies.org/articles/Vol_1/mudd.shtm

                As usual, TC, you came up a day late and a dollar short. You don’t have the intellectual capcity to research anything so stop trying to act like you have a brain. You don’t.

                Have a nice day, Comrade! 🙂

              • Conservative American says

                BTW, ignoramus, you will notice that p2012p wrote, “Mudd” and not “mudd”. Had he written the latter it would have been a misspelling. The fact that he used an upper case “M” and two “d’s” clearly shows that he was using the later reference to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and did NOT simply misspell the word “mud”, as the uninformed Tyler Montague thought.

                Why don’t the two of you get a little education. You can start with learning the distinction between upper case and lower case letters.

                Have a nice day, Comrade! 🙂

              • truconserv says

                Nice spin – if an unhinged spin – but you still lose.

                While some ignorant people think “your name is mud” can be spelled with double-d, and reference Dr. Mudd, as was demonstrated, only the ignorant do that.

                I can understand why those who never completed the sixth grade might not know the proper use of the phrase, it is intellectually unconscionable that, upon learning the proper usage, one would continue to advocate using it improperly.

                Tyler was right to poke fun at p2012p for using the double-d.

                You were wrong when trying to defend p2012p’s ignorance.

                The learning opportunity here is tri-part.

                1) You now know the proper use of the expression.
                2) We now know that you wingnuts will never admit it when you are wrong.
                3) I now know that, yet again, I revealed you for what you are.

                Go get a GED and try again.

              • truconcerv says

                BTW: you do know that your citation, above, is just to a comment on an IBB, right?

                It’s just some other clueless guy repeating the same mistake you made.

                Like you, he didn’t know any better, so he was reaching out for help.

                One hopes he was mature enough to learn from those who knew more.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

                You are SUCH an ignoramus that you don’t even know how much of an ignoramus you are, LOL!

                You want to talk about sources? Let’s talk about sources!

                This is the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the information you posted:

                http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/257/whats-the-origin-of-his-name-is-mud

                The author is Cecil Adams. Who is Cecil Adams?

                “Cecil Adams is a name, possibly a pseudonym, designating the American author of The Straight Dope, a popular question and answer column published in The Chicago Reader since 1973.”

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Adams

                And what does The Straight Dope website have to say about Cecil Adams?

                “Who is Cecil Adams?”

                “Cecil Adams is the world’s most intelligent human being. We know this because: (1) he knows everything, and (2) he is never wrong.”

                “How do we know that Cecil knows everything and is never wrong?”

                “Because he said so, and he would never lie to us.”

                http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil

                My example of the use of the phrase, “…his name is still Mudd”, comes from the website of The Smitsonian Associates. “Established as the cultural, educational, and membership division of the Smithsonian Institution, The Smithsonian Associates is recognized as the largest and most esteemed museum-based continuing education program in the nation.”

                Have a nice day, Marxist ignoramus! 🙂

              • TruConserv says

                Who is Cecil Adams – he’s he man smart enough to cite the Oxford English Dictionary.

                Who is CA: the man so dumb he can’t even read the sources he cites.

                Yes, the civil war site is run by the Smitsonian, but the Smitsonian never used the phrase “your name is Mudd.”

                Its story quoted an author of a book. Its like saying the New York Times agrees with Obama and Gingrich whenever it runs one of their quotes.

                Furthermore – the quoted use was a play on words. It in no way documents that “your name is mud” is traceable to Dr. Mudd.

                Once again you have been caught both being a fool and a liar.

                In other words – you’re a wingnut.

              • Conservative American says

                That’s our TC, LOL! SUCH an ignoramus that it’s not content with merely losing, but it comes back for more so that it can sink even DEEPER into the doo doo, ROFL! 🙂

                Are you ready for more, Ignoramus? Good, because here it comes, LOL!

                The quote I offered is from a book, “His Name Is Still Mudd”, by Edward Steers, Jr.. Who is Edward Steers Jr.?

                “Edward Steers, Jr.

                “BIOGRAPHY”
                “Dr. Edward Steers received his bachelors degree (1959, Microbiology) and doctorate (1963, Molecular Genetics) from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.”

                “From 1963 until 1994 he served at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland as a Research Scientist in biomedical research. During the last ten years of his career with the NIH, Dr. Steers was the Deputy Director for Intramural Research in the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.”

                “In 1994 Dr. Steers retired from the National Institutes of Health to pursue a career as a writer. He has authored three soft cover publications (The Escape and Capture of John Wilkes Booth,The Quotable Lincoln, and Lincoln, A Pictorial History) and two book editions (His Name Is Still Mudd and Blood On The Moon, The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln).”

                “Recognized as an authority on Abraham Lincoln and his assassination, Dr. Steers has made several radio and television appearances including C-SPAN’s Booknotes and Washington Journal, The History Channel’s Hard Cover History,The Discovery Channel, National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, and the NBC Today Show.”

                “Dr. Steers currently serves as the Internet Editor of the Lincoln Herald and is also an Associate Editor for North & South magazine.”

                “Dr. Steers has received awards in both the field of scientific research and history including a Fulbright Scholarship, election to American Men and Women of Science, election as a Fellow of the Company of Military Historians, and the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia’s Scholar of the Year Award (1999). His latestbook, Blood on the Moon, has recently been selected by the Lincoln Group of New York as the best Lincoln book for 2001.”

                http://www.loc.gov/loc/lincoln/steers-bio.html

                ‘Ya think that’s an authority, TC, LOL!

                As regards your use of the term “wingnut” again:

                “Alicia Gegner says:
                March 1, 2012 at 11:41 am”

                “The only people I know who use the term wingnuts are jackass lefties, even those who pose as conservatives. What a dufus. Hey TC, when you were talking about Marx, was it Groucho or Karl? Can you tell the difference?”

                And, of course, the liberal STEPHEN LEMONS of the liberal Phoenix New Times also likes to use the term “wingnut”, especially as regards Shane Wikfors:

                “Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
                By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM”

                “It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience.”

                http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php

                So first of all, get an education, ignoramus. Secondly, keep using the liberal term “wingnut” so that everyone will know that you are a MARXIST ignoramus!

                Have a nice day, Marxist ignoramus! 🙂

              • truconserv says

                Again, he was only using it as a catch line, a turn of a phrase.

                It does nothing to sustain your position.

                If you understood the material you quoted, you’d know that already.

                So, what are you, liar, fool or both?

                BTW: Now that you’ve defeated “my logic,” I guess you understand why your own is so lame. After all I was just parroting back to you your own. (or did that point miss you, like so much of life’s finer points.)

                G’night, you spammy, pathetic wingnut. I’m done with you.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

                You’re SUCH a Marxist ignornamus that you don’t even realize how much of an ignoramus you are, LOL!

                So let me get your argument straight, ignoramus. You are saying that a book written about Dr. Samuel A. Mudd by Dr. Edward Steers Jr., who is a recognized expert historical author on Lincoln AND his assassination, with the title, “His Name Is Still Mudd” and who, in the book, states, “…his name is still Mudd”, is WRONG! Is that right TC? And you hero, Tyler Montague, is right. ROFL, ROFL, ROFL! 🙂

                As regards your use of the term “wingnut” again:

                “Alicia Gegner says:
                March 1, 2012 at 11:41 am”

                “The only people I know who use the term wingnuts are jackass lefties, even those who pose as conservatives. What a dufus. Hey TC, when you were talking about Marx, was it Groucho or Karl? Can you tell the difference?”

                And, of course, the liberal STEPHEN LEMONS of the liberal Phoenix New Times also likes to use the term “wingnut”, especially as regards Shane Wikfors:

                “Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
                By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM”

                “It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience.”

                http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php

                So you’re right in there with your liberal buddies when you use the term, “wingnut”.

                Have a nice day, Marxist ignoramus! 🙂

              • Conservative American says

                Now that we have completely debunked the Marxist ignoramus, TC, let’s get back to the original point.

                p2012p wrote this:

                “p2012p says:
                March 2, 2012 at 10:12 am”

                “Tyler, don’t even think about having political aspirations in this state, your name is Mudd!”

                Tyler Montague wrote this:

                “Tyler Montague says:
                March 2, 2012 at 10:33 am”

                “Talmage, did you use two d’s for emphasis?”

                There is no spelling error by p2012p. The problem lies with Tyler Montague’s lack of knowledge.

              • truconserv says

                Someone has watched too many legal dramas. Contrary to what TV teaches you, you can’t just lie your way out of being caught acting stupid.

                The Oxford English Dictionary proves the saying dates to 1823 and that “mud” as an insult dates to the 1700’s. The proper usage is “your name is mud.”

                So far, CA, you’ve offered no proof to the contrary.

                All you’ve done is link to someone else who made the same mistake you made and to an author (or more likely his publisher) who used a turn of the phrase as a catch-word in a book. An isolated play on words does not make for a saying.

                None of this really matters, other than it reveals to us that CA, like all wingnuts, can’t admit when he is wrong. He’s so committed to being a reactionary that all he can do is argue the opposite of that others say, do or write.

                He’s the pathetic reminder that wingnuts are not conservatives and they should never be allowed to speak as if they are.

              • Conservative American says

                Here it is a little closer to your last post, Marxist ignoramus!

                ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROLF! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

                Oh, so you want MORE! Well, you’ve come to the right place, Marxist ingoramus! Prepare to receive, LOL!

                Announcing two moves to Checkmate. Coup de grace soon, TC.

                “His Name Was Mudd”

                “The career of Samuel Alexander Mudd, class of 1856, did indeed make popular that expression, even though scholars have traced its origins to at least one generation prior to Mudd’s birth in 1833.”

                Who wrote that?

                “About the author: Wayne Millan is a lecturer in ancient history at The American University in Washington, D.C. A high honors graduate of Swarthmore College, he did graduate study at Brown and the University of Maryland before serving as a historical consultant on televised series for Discovery Communications, PBS, and National Geographic Channels.”

                http://www.medicalalumni.org/bulletin/winter_2007/alumni.htm

                That is EXACTLY what I stated above, Marxist ignoramus, LOL

                Now you respond to that one and then I’ll finally put you out of your misery, Marxist ignoramus!

            • Conservative American says

              ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROLF! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

              Oh, so you want MORE! Well, you’ve come to the right place, Marxist ingoramus! Prepare to receive, LOL!

              Announcing two moves to Checkmate. Coup de grace soon, TC. 😉

              “His Name Was Mudd”

              “The career of Samuel Alexander Mudd, class of 1856, did indeed make popular that expression, even though scholars have traced its origins to at least one generation prior to Mudd’s birth in 1833.”

              Who wrote that?

              “About the author: Wayne Millan is a lecturer in ancient history at The American University in Washington, D.C. A high honors graduate of Swarthmore College, he did graduate study at Brown and the University of Maryland before serving as a historical consultant on televised series for Discovery Communications, PBS, and National Geographic Channels.”

              http://www.medicalalumni.org/bulletin/winter_2007/alumni.htm

              That is EXACTLY what I stated above, Marxist ignoramus, LOL

              Now you respond to that one and then I’ll finally put you out of your misery, Marxist ignoramus!

              • TruConserv says

                I’m still going to trust the Oxford English Dictionary.

                Given that your doctor (1) admits the insult predates Mudd and that (2) gets the year it has been traced to wrong, I’m still going to go with what we all know is the truth: the proper expression is “your name is mud.”

                I note with fascination that your “expert” does nothing to back up his claim. It’s a naked allegation unsupported by evidence.

                In contrast, the OED gives the name of the both the 1823 poem where the saying comes from and the 1703 dictionary that lists mud as an insult.

                Your guy does what – repeat something he heard at a lecture?

                You were wrong to go after Tyler. It’s not his fault he knows the real origin and the proper spelling of the phrase and you didn’t. Maybe if you published a wingnut to English dictionary the rest of us could keep up with you.

                You made a fool of yourself and you continue doing so with each and every post.

                You got it wrong – and you refuse to admit it because all you know how to do is react to the positions of others. You have no capacity for independent, much less honest, discussion.

              • Conservative American says

                Announcing Checkmate in one move. It’s time, yet once again, TC, for the coup de grace, LOL! 🙂

                You have but one imaginary thread upon which your imaginary argument hangs. You wrote this:

                “All you’ve done is link to someone else who made the same mistake you made and to an author (or more likely his publisher) who used a turn of the phrase as a catch-word in a book.”

                Prove it, LOL! You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. Quote the author OR the publisher as stating that the title of Steers book, “His Name Is Still Mudd”, or that the passage in the body of the book, “…his name is still Mudd”, is, in fact, a “turn of the phrase as a catch-word in a book”.

                Case closed. You lose, YET AGAIN, LOL! I know that you CAN’T prove your assertion. No evidence for it exists. You’re done, LOL! 🙂

                Now I’ll let you come back with your usual loser song and dance and then I’ll recap, step by step, how your feeble arguments were systematically destroyed.

                You have the floor, Marxist ignoramus. Wax poetic, LOL! 🙂

              • TruConserv says

                Complete fail.

                One, the burden is yours. You posited that the title of the book “his name is still Mudd” proved that “your name is Mudd” is the accepted use of the contended phrase.

                Two, what I offered is called a counter-factual. Its burden is carried in its announcement what that announcement relies on common knowledge or sense.

                Three, even if you were correct, I carried my burden when I quoted the QED and a number of other sources dedicated to explaining the explaining the meaning, source and proper use words and phrases.

                You’re not even on the same board as I am.

                – it has been proven beyond a doubt that “your name is mud” is the proper saying, and its origin dates to at least 1823.

                – it has been shown that those who lives are dedicated to understanding words and phrases mockingly disregard the usage “your name is Mudd.”

                QED it has been shown that CA is absolutely out of his depth and has been revealed as a contrarian who is incapable of admitting when he is wrong.

                It was wrong for you to go after Tyler simply because he knew the appropriate use and spelling of the phrase.

                I was actually hoping you were going to prove me wrong, so I could show you how a mature, balanced person acknowledges past mistakes and embraces new learning.

                Sadly, after all that fanfare you gave the lamest defense yet.

                The essence of your defense has been “but other people used it too.” And that is the problem with all you wingnuts. If enough people say it, especially if that person has some initials after their name, you’ll swallow it right up without asking for proof.

                That’s how we got the birther, truther, slaughterer of Christian myths hung around our necks – nitwits like you, CA, propagated nonsense without bothering to verify it.

                That is why wingnuts are not conservatives and should never be allowed to speak as if they are.

              • TruConserv says

                the first use of QED is in error. It should read OED.

                OED = Oxford English Dictionary.

                The second use of QED is spot on!

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL! Everything you wrote is an error, LOL! 🙂

                Now let’s recap this debate and see how both TC AND Tyler Montague got their clocks cleaned, shall we?

                p201p wrote: “Tyler, don’t even think about having political aspirations in this state, your name is Mudd!”

                Montague snidely responded: “Talmage, did you use two d’s for emphasis?”

                I pointed out that use of “Mudd”, with an upper case “M” and two “d’s” is a reference to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd who provided medical treatment to John Wilkes Booth after Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln. That ruined Mudd’s reputation, hence the phrase, “His name is Mudd”.

                TC claimed that the phrase was first used some 40 years BEFORE Lincoln was assassinated and cites a reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. However, the phrase that was used prior to Mudd’s disastrous action was, “His name is mud”, and NOT, “His name is Mudd”. The historical event of Mudd’s actions CHANGED the popular use, at the time, of the phrase from, “His name is mud”, to, “His name is Mudd”.

                Here are portions of the “quote” that TC used from the Oxford English Dictionary:

                “The Oxford English Dictionary, in an entry revised in December 2007, finds the first example of the phrase from 1823, more than four decades before Lincoln was assassinated.”

                “It’s not from the family name Mudd but from the wet sticky earth stuff. It builds on a slang sense of mud recorded in the previous century.”

                Notice two things:

                1 – The “quote” addresses ORIGINS and NOT subsequent changes in usage.

                2 – The “quote” is not a quote! There are no quotation marks, which are used when quoting a source, and there is no link directly to the referenced entry in the Oxford English Dictionary!

                To prove the point regarding a change in popular usage, I offered evidence from the scholar, Wayne Millan. What are Mr. Millan’s credentials?

                “Wayne Millan is a lecturer in ancient history at The American University in Washington, D.C. A high honors graduate of Swarthmore College, he did graduate study at Brown and the University of Maryland before serving as a historical consultant on televised series for Discovery Communications, PBS, and National Geographic Channels.”

                So the man is well educated and served specifically as a historical consultant for Discovery, PBS and National Geographic.

                Wayne Millan wrote:

                “His Name Was Mudd”

                “The career of Samuel Alexander Mudd, class of 1856, did indeed make popular that expression, even though scholars have traced its origins to at least one generation prior to Mudd’s birth in 1833.”

                So Millan recognizes the earlier origins BUT states that “His name was Mudd” refers to Dr. Samuel A Mudd and that Mudd’s actions “…did indeed make popular that expression…”.

                Next, we have a book, entirely dedicated to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, entitled, “His Name Is Still Mudd”, and in which the author uses in the body of the book the phrase, “…his name is still Mudd”.

                Who is the author, what is his education and what are his credentials regarding Lincoln, the Lincoln assassination and the general history of that time? The author is Dr. Edward Steers Jr. and this is his biography:

                ““Dr. Edward Steers received his bachelors degree (1959, Microbiology) and doctorate (1963, Molecular Genetics) from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.”

                “From 1963 until 1994 he served at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland as a Research Scientist in biomedical research. During the last ten years of his career with the NIH, Dr. Steers was the Deputy Director for Intramural Research in the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.”

                “In 1994 Dr. Steers retired from the National Institutes of Health to pursue a career as a writer. He has authored three soft cover publications (The Escape and Capture of John Wilkes Booth,The Quotable Lincoln, and Lincoln, A Pictorial History) and two book editions (His Name Is Still Mudd and Blood On The Moon, The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln).”

                “Recognized as an authority on Abraham Lincoln and his assassination, Dr. Steers has made several radio and television appearances including C-SPAN’s Booknotes and Washington Journal, The History Channel’s Hard Cover History,The Discovery Channel, National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, and the NBC Today Show.”

                “Dr. Steers currently serves as the Internet Editor of the Lincoln Herald and is also an Associate Editor for North & South magazine.”

                “Dr. Steers has received awards in both the field of scientific research and history including a Fulbright Scholarship, election to American Men and Women of Science, election as a Fellow of the Company of Military Historians, and the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia’s Scholar of the Year Award (1999). His latestbook, Blood on the Moon, has recently been selected by the Lincoln Group of New York as the best Lincoln book for 2001.”

                So TC is relying entirely upon a “reference” to an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, NOT a direct quote, which addresses the ORIGINS of the phrase and NOT subsequent changes in use following later historical events; specifically the actions of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd.

                At the same time, TC rejects the use of the phrases, “His Name Is Still Mudd”, “His Name Was Mudd” and “his name is still Mudd”, by not one, but two scholars with expertise in history.

                Given all of the above, is it reasonable to assume that p2012p made an error or a misspelling when he wrote “Mudd” instead of “mud”? Absolutely not! p201p was clearly making reference to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and the expression, “His name is Mudd”.

                Were there grounds for Tyler Montague to question the use of two “d’s” WITHOUT questioning the use of an upper case “M”? No, there were not. The reason that Tyler Montague questioned ONLY the use of two “d’s”, and not the use of an upper case “M”, is that Montague clearly lacked knowledge of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and how Mudd’s actions and name changed the popular use of the phrase in question.

                TC wants to defend the statement by Tyler Montague but the statement by Tyler Montague is entirely indefensible.

              • truconserv says

                The grounds are simple: using “His name is Mudd’ is an improper use of a very common saying.

                Just because you and a few others on the Internet use it improperly doesn’t mean those of us who know better can’t mock you.

                I’m guessing that happens to you a lot.

              • Conservative American says

                The grounds are very simple: because YOU say something is so doesn’t make it so.

                TC wrote: “Just because you and a few others on the Internet use it improperly…”

                That is a gross misstatement of fact. The “few others on the internet” are acknowledged experts, one of whom has written an entire book dedicated to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. You and Tyler Montague have no expertise on the subject whatsoever.

                Since apparently you were unable to take in the facts the first time, I’ll post them again for you!

                Now let’s recap this debate and see how both TC AND Tyler Montague got their clocks cleaned, shall we?

                p201p wrote: “Tyler, don’t even think about having political aspirations in this state, your name is Mudd!”

                Montague snidely responded: “Talmage, did you use two d’s for emphasis?”

                I pointed out that use of “Mudd”, with an upper case “M” and two “d’s” is a reference to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd who provided medical treatment to John Wilkes Booth after Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln. That ruined Mudd’s reputation, hence the phrase, “His name is Mudd”.

                TC claimed that the phrase was first used some 40 years BEFORE Lincoln was assassinated and cites a reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. However, the phrase that was used prior to Mudd’s disastrous action was, “His name is mud”, and NOT, “His name is Mudd”. The historical event of Mudd’s actions CHANGED the popular use, at the time, of the phrase from, “His name is mud”, to, “His name is Mudd”.

                Here are portions of the “quote” that TC used from the Oxford English Dictionary:

                “The Oxford English Dictionary, in an entry revised in December 2007, finds the first example of the phrase from 1823, more than four decades before Lincoln was assassinated.”

                “It’s not from the family name Mudd but from the wet sticky earth stuff. It builds on a slang sense of mud recorded in the previous century.”

                Notice two things:

                1 – The “quote” addresses ORIGINS and NOT subsequent changes in usage.

                2 – The “quote” is not a quote! There are no quotation marks, which are used when quoting a source, and there is no link directly to the referenced entry in the Oxford English Dictionary!

                To prove the point regarding a change in popular usage, I offered evidence from the scholar, Wayne Millan. What are Mr. Millan’s credentials?

                “Wayne Millan is a lecturer in ancient history at The American University in Washington, D.C. A high honors graduate of Swarthmore College, he did graduate study at Brown and the University of Maryland before serving as a historical consultant on televised series for Discovery Communications, PBS, and National Geographic Channels.”

                So the man is well educated and served specifically as a historical consultant for Discovery, PBS and National Geographic.

                Wayne Millan wrote:

                “His Name Was Mudd”

                “The career of Samuel Alexander Mudd, class of 1856, did indeed make popular that expression, even though scholars have traced its origins to at least one generation prior to Mudd’s birth in 1833.”

                So Millan recognizes the earlier origins BUT states that “His name was Mudd” refers to Dr. Samuel A Mudd and that Mudd’s actions “…did indeed make popular that expression…”.

                Next, we have a book, entirely dedicated to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, entitled, “His Name Is Still Mudd”, and in which the author uses in the body of the book the phrase, “…his name is still Mudd”.

                Who is the author, what is his education and what are his credentials regarding Lincoln, the Lincoln assassination and the general history of that time? The author is Dr. Edward Steers Jr. and this is his biography:

                ““Dr. Edward Steers received his bachelors degree (1959, Microbiology) and doctorate (1963, Molecular Genetics) from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.”

                “From 1963 until 1994 he served at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland as a Research Scientist in biomedical research. During the last ten years of his career with the NIH, Dr. Steers was the Deputy Director for Intramural Research in the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.”

                “In 1994 Dr. Steers retired from the National Institutes of Health to pursue a career as a writer. He has authored three soft cover publications (The Escape and Capture of John Wilkes Booth,The Quotable Lincoln, and Lincoln, A Pictorial History) and two book editions (His Name Is Still Mudd and Blood On The Moon, The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln).”

                “Recognized as an authority on Abraham Lincoln and his assassination, Dr. Steers has made several radio and television appearances including C-SPAN’s Booknotes and Washington Journal, The History Channel’s Hard Cover History,The Discovery Channel, National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, and the NBC Today Show.”

                “Dr. Steers currently serves as the Internet Editor of the Lincoln Herald and is also an Associate Editor for North & South magazine.”

                “Dr. Steers has received awards in both the field of scientific research and history including a Fulbright Scholarship, election to American Men and Women of Science, election as a Fellow of the Company of Military Historians, and the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia’s Scholar of the Year Award (1999). His latestbook, Blood on the Moon, has recently been selected by the Lincoln Group of New York as the best Lincoln book for 2001.”

                So TC is relying entirely upon a “reference” to an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, NOT a direct quote, which addresses the ORIGINS of the phrase and NOT subsequent changes in use following later historical events; specifically the actions of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd.

                At the same time, TC rejects the use of the phrases, “His Name Is Still Mudd”, “His Name Was Mudd” and “his name is still Mudd”, by not one, but two scholars with expertise in history.

                Given all of the above, is it reasonable to assume that p2012p made an error or a misspelling when he wrote “Mudd” instead of “mud”? Absolutely not! p201p was clearly making reference to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and the expression, “His name is Mudd”.

                Were there grounds for Tyler Montague to question the use of two “d’s” WITHOUT questioning the use of an upper case “M”? No, there were not. The reason that Tyler Montague questioned ONLY the use of two “d’s”, and not the use of an upper case “M”, is that Montague clearly lacked knowledge of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and how Mudd’s actions and name changed the popular use of the phrase in question.

                TC wants to defend the statement by Tyler Montague but the statement by Tyler Montague is entirely indefensible.

      • Jared Ray says

        Really p2012p? Still griping about the recall? I think its time to move on. Acceptance is the first step. The fact that your comment constituted nothing more than an insult (surprise!) and had nothing to say about the actual editorial only underscores its quality.

        Conservative American – Tyler had no control over the title of that New Times article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the content of Tyler’s quoted words.

      • Its a STUPID bill the way it is written. I’m sure it would actually have some sense in it if former Sen Pearch had been able to put his gills on it. I think that’s what the author’s article is saying. In its current form, its just a law that would allow WoW weirdos to hang out at the MU trying to impress girls with the size of their gun, and that’s not going to make anyone safer.

        • Conservative American says

          Well, TBone, you’re certainly not going to impress anyone with the size of your gun, LOL!

          Sorry, just couldn’t let such a perfect setup do by. 😉

      • TruConserv says

        So if a person “spearheads” CCW, then they can never do anything else that is wrong?

        One right forgives how many wrongs?

        Pearce was tossed out, by the voters, because of his bad acts. It’s called personal accountability and its something we conservatives value.

        You and Pearce need scapegoats and “enemies lists.”

        How positively un-conservative of both of you.

        • Conservative American says

          Ah, look who’s here. Why it’s TC who wrote this:

          “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

          That’s Karl Marx who wrote the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

          And let’s have a look at which Communist debate tactic TC is using today. Why it’s one of his old favorites, the “if/then” tactic. Here’s how it goes…

          “IF a person “spearheads” CCW, THEN they can never do anything else that is wrong.”

          In this case TC is using the “if/then” tactic in one of his favorite ways; to deliberately create an agrument which is absurd on the face of it. Where has he used a tactic in this way before?

          “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

          What TC is saying is as follows:

          Karl Marx is a Communist. Karl Marx drank milk. Therefore, all people who drink milk are Communist.

          The argument is absurd on the face of it which is supposed to get Marx off the hook for being a Communist. But the conclusion is based upon false logic.

          Here is sound logic:

          Karl Marx is a Communist. Karl Marx drank milk. Therefore, SOME people who drink milk are Communists.

          So TC is just up to his usual Communist, Karl Marx games while pretending that he is a “Conservative”.

          As Jane001 so aptly put it:

          “Jane001 says:
          February 16, 2012 at 11:04 am”

          “…TruConserv, True Conservative… is it possible that you’re fooling a single person on this site?”

          Well Jane, he may be impressing his fellow liberals but he isn’t fooling any Conservatives!

          Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

          • TruConserv says

            The logic you assail was my mocking of your dismal logic in the preceding posts. Where you claimed that anything Marx did Conservatives must oppose.

            It’s called reductio ab absurdum, and the fact that you don’t understand it is ABSOLUTELY hilarious.

            All you’ve accomplished in your post – above – is remind us that not only are you a spammy coward who can’t stay on-topic, you’re also not a very bright one.

            .

            • Conservative American says

              Let’s cut through the hype and BS, TC. You wrote this about Karl Marx:

              “True Conservative says:
              February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

              “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

              “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

              “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

              You’re talking about taxes, murder laws and even something as benign as drinking milk. All very nice and very genteel. That isn’t what the Communism of Karl Marx is about. THIS is what it’s about:

              “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

              “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

              “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

              http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

              Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

              • TruConserv says

                No one is defending communism or Karl Marx.

                I was defending Adam Smith, the father of capitalism.

                You’re just reinforcing your reputation as a spammy unhinged stalker.

              • Conservative American says

                You wrote this, TC:

                “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

                I don’t see Adam Smith in that statement, TC.

                Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

              • TruConserv says

                That’s because you took the quote out of context and used selective cut-and-paste.

                Because, again, you’re just a spammy, cyberstalking, pathetic, lying creep.

                You’re the perfect embodiment of why we don’t want wingnuts talking as if they were conservatives.

                You tarnish us all with your failings.

                Here’s its an inter-mural scrimmage so I don’t mind if your show your true colors. Post away wingnut, post away.

              • Conservative American says

                Really, TC? Then why don’t you put your comment in context for us. You have the floor. Take all the space you need.

                Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

      • We are not going to agree on everything all the time. Tyler “and his daddy” were wrong about Pearce, but he’s right on with his comments on the 2nd Amendment.

  2. TruConserv says

    Pretty good. I fully endorse your position, but I have to comment: why didn’t you include the data that supports your argument.

    You write:

    “In his view, these risks outweigh whatever benefits may come from armed students or staff. This is a reasonable concern, although there is plenty of data to suggest Crow’s concerns are contradicted by evidence.”

    and

    ” In fact, violent crime has dropped significantly, and there is a lot of data to suggest that criminals’ fear of armed citizens has something to do with it.”

    Imagine how much stronger your argument would be if you actually presented that data …

    • Tyler Montague says

      That’s a good point, TruCon. Writing and analysis on the safety and benefits of concealed-weapons carry is ubiquitous and widely accepted among this audience, so I didn’t want to bog my writing down with a whole lot of it, but here is a good article from The Cato Institute that I have referred to from time to time. http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/fighting-back-crime-selfdefense-right-carry-handgun

    • Conservative American says

      That’s all well and good, TC, but you wrote this:

      “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

      That’s Karl Marx, the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

      No need to cover yourself with comments supporting the 2nd Amendment. Your cover is already blown.

      Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

      • TruConserv says

        Knock off the spam, loser. Just because you lead a rudderless life where the only way you can make it through the day is to examine what others are doing is no reason to subject the rest of us to your mindless spam.

        • Conservative American says

          Not only did you write this:

          “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

          That’s Karl Marx, the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

          You also wrote this:

          “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

          Quite a defense of the father of Communism, Karl Marx!

          • Jared Ray says

            Tribal politics at its best. Conservative American doesn’t form his own opinions or views. He just agrees with friends and disagrees with enemies. I for one, will continue to drink milk even though Karl Marx drank milk. This doesn’t make me a communist sympathizer.

  3. Oberserve says

    From the liberal (Crow/ASU administration perspective), they are being inconsistent. Do they make you check your child, seeing eye dog, or birth control pills at the door? If so, they’d have the same or greater costs as the $13 million + $3 million/year they cite.

    Of course not, because it’s ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as making your check and store your guns.

    It’s a public campus. Therefore, state laws should apply same as everywhere else in public. I.e. none of the university’s G-D business!

    • Conservative American says

      Why Oberserve, I’m shocked! You just proved yourself to be a liar! You wrote this to me JUST YESTERDAY!

      “Oberserve says:
      February 29, 2012 at 2:49 pm”

      “I heard more cursing at school as a child than I do today as an adult. Guess what? I don’t curse.”

      “Can’t say the same for you, Liberal American.”

      And today, the VERY NEXT DAY, you write this:

      “Therefore, state laws should apply same as everywhere else in public. I.e. none of the university’s G-D business!”

      “G-D business!” ????????

      • Oberserve says

        I forgot to add your perspective as part of the liberal perspective I was referring to.

        • Conservative American says

          But Oberserve, you told me just yesterday:

          “I don’t curse.”

          You are, by your own statement, a liar because today you wrote:

          “Therefore, state laws should apply same as everywhere else in public. I.e. none of the university’s G-D business!”

          Now who’s going to listen to what a proven liar has to say?

          • TruConserv says

            Perhaps you are not a native to Arizona and did not enjoy the company of young Mormons and Catholics.

            Were you, you would know that G-D is, at worst, a euphemism, and in most cases not even that.

            My reading of the Observe’s statement is not that of a curse. S/he was communicating outrage and giving emphasis, and nothing more.

            Besides, your post has nothing to do with the topic, in no way addresses Observes comments, and represents just another effort by you to shut down Sonoran Alliance.

            Quit being a troll.

            • Conservative American says

              TC wrote: “My reading of the Observe’s statement is not that of a curse. S/he was communicating outrage and giving emphasis, and nothing more.”

              Well, that sort of interpretation of taking the Lord’s name in vain is classic for a Communist like you. After alll you did write:

              “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

              That would be Karl Marx, author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

              • TruConserv says

                You got me, I’m not an idiot reactionary whose life is guided by what others do. My life is about what my beliefs and values dictate I do, without regard for what “the other kids are doing.” But that’s just how I was raised.

                If Marx wanted the trains to run on time, I don’t stand in opposition to that.

                Sadly, you do.

                I’m also not an intellectual coward who can’t reply substantively to the issue being discussed.

                Sadly, you are.

              • Conservative American says

                Let’s stick to the facts, TC, The inescapable fact is that you wrote this:

                “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

                And don’t give me that garbage about trains running on time. THIS is what Communism is about:

                “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

                “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

                “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

                http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

              • truconserv says

                Off your meds again?

              • Conservative American says

                You have this to say about Karl Marx:

                ” truconserv says:
                March 3, 2012 at 6:00 am”

                “Marx wanted the citizens to be armed …”

                “Trains that run on time …”

                “Milk to be fresh …”

                And THIS is what your Karl Marx, the father of Communism and the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” brought into this world:

                “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

                “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

                “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

                http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

                ROFL! You’re a true Marxist attempting, poorly, to pose as a Conservative, LOL!

                Have a nice day, Comrade! 🙂

            • Conservative American says

              Alicia summed it up succinctly when she wrote:

              “Alicia Gegner says:
              March 1, 2012 at 11:41 am”

              “How come TC always stands up for the bad guys?”

              Well, that’s because TC is a bad guy who supports Karl Marx and Communism. Bad guys support bad guys.

              • TruConserv says

                I’ve never supported Marx nor communism.

                You know that, but at the end of the day you lack both the human decency and the intellectual honesty to do anything other than reply with your spammy lies.

                You are a very, very pathetic man.

              • Conservative American says

                Is that so, TC?

                “True Conservative says:
                February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

                “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

                “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

                “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

                Hey, TC, don’t fall over defending your hero, Karl Marx, the father of Communism and co-author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

              • TruConserv says

                You left out where I pointed out that the father of capitalism, Adam Smith also favored a progressive tax, thereby demonstrating the folly of your claim that progressive taxes are evil because Marx supported them.

                You left out where I explained that conservative presidents and conservative congresses supported a progressive tax system, and none of them were communists.

                You left out where I flatly stated I would support a flat tax if one could be presented that would work.

                In other words, you left out the truth.

                You are a miserable, pathetic, dishonest person – you are a wingnut.

              • Conservative American says

                Let’s cut through the hype and BS. TC. Communism isn’t simply about progressive taxes, although I’m sure that is where you would like to keep the discussion. THIS is the ugly reality of the Communism of Karl Marx:

                “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

                “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

                “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

                http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

              • TruConserv says

                Yea, communism bad.

                If I was defending communism, you would have a point.

                Unfortunate for you, I wasn’t and you don’t.

              • Conservative American says

                You wrote this, TC:

                “True Conservative says:
                February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

                “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

                “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

                “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

                You are defending Karl Marx, your hreo, the father of Communism and the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. You certainly aren’t trying to characterize your comments as an attack on or cirtique of Karl Marx, are you, LOL!

                “Alicia Gegner says:
                March 1, 2012 at 11:41 am”

                “the only people I know who use the term wingnuts are jackass lefties, even those who pose as conservatives. What a dufus. Hey TC, when you were talking about Marx, was it Groucho or Karl? Can you tell the difference?”

                People have your number, Pinko! 🙂

              • TruConserv says

                You’re a fundamentally dishonest person.

                You know we were discussing how Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, favored a progressive tax.

                Your point was that because Marx supported it, then it must be evil.

                The rest is just you selectively cutting and pasting – and posting it here as off-topic spam – because you don’t have the ability to engage in truthful, focused discussion.

                Just more proof that you’re no conservative.

              • Conservative American says

                You wrote this, TC:

                “True Conservative says:
                February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

                “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

                “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

                “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

                Now no matter how you try to spin and hype it, that is what you wrote. And the man you were defending, Karl Marx, the father of Communism and the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, unleashed this on the world:

                “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

                “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

                “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

                http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

                And you want to talk to us about, “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

                Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

              • truconserv says

                Of course it’s what I wrote.

                Do you disagree with it?

                Do you think that anything Marx supported conservatives should oppose?

                Is that how we should lead our lives – looking at what others think to determine what we think?

                Marx wanted the citizens to be armed …

                Trains that run on time …

                Milk to be fresh …

                You’re just a spammy clown. Post some more, you make this too easy.

              • Conservative American says

                Let’s be clear here. Karl Marx was the father of Communism and the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. What he brought into the world resulted in this:

                “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

                “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

                “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

                http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

                And this is what YOU have to say about Karl Marx:

                ” truconserv says:
                March 3, 2012 at 6:00 am”

                “Marx wanted the citizens to be armed …”

                “Trains that run on time …”

                “Milk to be fresh …”

                ROFL, you’re a Marxist attempting to pose as a Conservative, LOL!

                Have a nice day, Comrade! 🙂

              • truconserv says

                Bring the spam, wingnut, you really do make this too easy.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!:-)

                You give yourself away as a liberal Marxist every time you write something. Who uses the term “wingnut”? Who has used it with regard to Shane Wikfors? Why none othere than STEPHEN LEMONS at the Phoenix New Times!

                “Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
                By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM”

                “It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience.”

                http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php

                As Alicia said:

                “Alicia Gegner says:
                March 1, 2012 at 11:41 am”

                “the only people I know who use the term wingnuts are jackass lefties, even those who pose as conservatives.”

                And TC is toast!

                Have a nice day, Marxist ignoramus! 😉

              • TruConserv says

                A not B and C not A does not make B equals C.

                Wingnut is the term we conservatives use for those of you on the lunatic fringe. I’m not responsible for some one elses misuse of a perfectly good for that describes you perfectly.

                BTW: the new times has accused people in the past of being Marxists. You accuse me of being a Marxist. Is that you Stephen Lemons?

                You’re a clown – and Ron Reagan used that term to describe liberals, so by your logic now I’m Ron Reagan?

                ROTFLMAO!

              • Conservative American says

                What do you mean, “we conservatives”, TC? You’re a Marxist ignoramus, LOL!

                Let’s see who uses the term, “wingnut”, shall we?

                These are all from the self-proclaimed “progressive” Democatic website, Daily Kos. I’ll include links for the first few. The rest will be provided upon request as there is a limit to the number of links in one comment.

                “TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong”

                “by Hunter for Daily Kos”

                http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/09/10/49929/-TANG-Typewriter-Follies-Wingnuts-Wrong

                “I Am Going To Really Piss Off The Wingnuts And Marry My House”

                “by LaFeminista”

                http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/02/1041838/-I-Am-Going-To-Really-Piss-Off-The-Wingnuts-And-Marry-My-House?via=tag

                “Who wants to teach some wingnuts a lesson?”

                “by marjorityvoice”

                http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/10/974692/-Who-wants-to-teach-some-wingnuts-a-lesson

                “Wingnuts Freak Out As Cops Join WI Protests”

                “by bernardpliers”

                “Dear Florida Wingnuts, the Northeast Thanks You.”

                “by bigtimecynic”

                “San Jose IRS Bomb Threat as Wingnuts waste corporate, government time”

                “by The Scientific Liberal”

                As Alicia so aptly stated:

                “Alicia Gegner says:
                March 1, 2012 at 11:41 am”

                “The only people I know who use the term wingnuts are jackass lefties, even those who pose as conservatives. What a dufus. Hey TC, when you were talking about Marx, was it Groucho or Karl? Can you tell the difference?”

                And as Jane001 stated:

                “Jane001 says:
                February 16, 2012 at 11:04 am”

                “…TruConserv, True Conservative… is it possible that you’re fooling a single person on this site?”

                No, it’s not, Jane. TC’s use of the liberal term “wingnut” demonstrates that TC is nothing more than a Marxist ignoramus, LOL!

                Have a nice night, Marxist ignoramus! 🙂

    • Excellent!

  4. If the schools dont have $13 million then dont install lockers. It’s that simple.

    And what students are actually going to use the lockers anyway????????????

    The same students that will require a CCW to carry on college grounds???

    NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    VOTE YES ON 1474 b/c punk students are going to break the law anyway

  5. “Of course not, because it’s ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as making your check and store your guns.”

    BINGO!

  6. “That’s a lot of money to waste in order to keep students and staff just as unprotected as they were before”

    So then DONT build any lockers are save $13 million ~~~~

  7. “Imagine how much stronger your argument would be if you actually presented that data …”

    Sounds like a KOS turd wrote this piece:

    “Yeah, I’m fully for 2nd Amendment, but dont support any laws giving gun rights to the people”

    • Tyler Montague says

      I don’t want to interrupt this conversation you’re having with yourself, “Eph,” but I believe my point is that they should pass a more effective bill, or not pass one at all. The current bill just wastes money and doesn’t allow anyone to actually carry a weapon. Adding a bill that doesn’t expand anyone’s rights in a meaningful way, while wasting a bunch of money, is NOT conservative or smart.

      • How does the current bill waste money? Please explain.

        • Tyler Montague says

          Read the article.

          • I did. How does the current bill watse money?

            Because pararnoid libs feel the need to spend $13 million on gun lockers that will NEVER be used?

            • Tyler Montague says

              That’s right, you nailed it. The bill let’s “paranoid libs” blow $13 million of taxpayer-subsidized dollars on lockers. That’s how the bill wastes money.

              • That’s what libs do though. You think they wouldn’t find another way to blow $13 million? I can give you a whole bunch of other reasons how they would.

  8. “while unemployment is high, the housing bubble still stings, and our K-12 education ranks near the bottom.”

    I blame Obama for all three

  9. In the VA Tech case, for example, please do not assume that a person carrying a gun on the campus would have engaged in a firefight with this guy. Guns don’t make people courageous or heroic. Armed or not, who would suddenly stand up in the line of fire to try to maybe save some lives? I don’t care what I’m carrying, if I hear an explosion or gunfire I get the heck out of there. Period, without thinking. Why do people think that instinct (the right one, for me) suddenly changes because I have a 9mm on my belt?

    Sure, if I am cornered I will do what I can to protect myself. It’s called self-defense for a reason. Just don’t assume an ordinary citizen with a weapon is supposed to act like a superhero.

    I know Crow complains about untrained carriers and the collateral damage they might inflict in a situation like VA Tech, but he’s falling into the same logical trap that a lot of gun advocates fall into.

  10. Sgt. Flapjaw says

    The criminal element does indeed fear a public that is armed, almost as much as the government does.

    • Great point

    • TruConserv says

      Agree on criminal element.

      Laugh at you with regard to the government.

      No modern government, with its militarized police and drive-a-truck-through it loophole within posse comitatus fears you because you’re packing a handgun. Norr if you have a shotgun on your person.

      One, “the government” is not the one actually fighting you – it’s the men and women they control that will.

      Two, if it comes down to a real armed-revolt, the government will have you outgunned and out-trained.

      Sorry to inform you, but there will be no revolution. You will never get to live your Red Dawn dream. You can put away your high school letter jacket.

      • Conservative American says

        You can take that straight from a supporter of Karl Marx, author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. That’s right, TC wrote this:

        “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

        It’s no surprise, then, that he doesn’t think much of an armed citizenry, is it!

        Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

        • TruConserv says

          I’ve never supported Marx or Communism.

          But how about you?

          Marx supported having an armed citizenry. (It being necessary for the revolution) You support an armed citizenry.

          Are you a Marxist?

          Of course not.

          You’re an idiot, a liar and a wingnut, but just because you don’t oppose everything Marx supported doesn’t make you a communist.

          At some point in your life you really should consider adopting some conservative values, such as opposing the bearing of false witness.

          • Conservative American says

            Let’s cut through the hype and BS, TC. You wrote this:

            “True Conservative says:
            February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

            “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

            “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

            “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

            Well, isn’t that sweet. You want to talk about Marx and Communism in terms of murder laws, taxes and even something as benign as drinking milk. THIS is the reality of the Communism of Karl Marx:

            “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

            “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

            “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

            http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

          • Conservative American says

            You wrote this, TC:

            “True Conservative says:
            February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

            “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

            “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

            How very sweet. Murder laws, taxes and drinking milk. You forgot something about Karl Marx and his Communis though, TC. You forgot this:

            “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

            “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

            “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

            http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

          • TruConserv says

            No Hype, No BS.

            I’ve never supported Marx or Communism.

            How about you?

            Marx wanted an armed citizenry. You want an armed citizenry.

            Are you a Marxist? Do you support communism?

            • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

              Checkmate.

              “Conservative American” is an idiot, and an embarrassment to true conservatives everywhere. He trolls this website and makes it almost impossible for any thoughtful discussion to occur. How many of his comments under this article, for example, have had anything to do with the topic of guns on campus and the bill under consideration? People like Conservative American are really DBs who embarrass intelligent people on the right by dominating the microphone and misrepresenting the rest of us.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL! I’m an idiot?

                MCC wrote: “…embarrass intelligent people on the right by dominating the microphone…”

                I hate to tell you this, Honey, but there ain’t no microphone at SA, LOL! Everything is in written form and there is more than enough cyberspace for multiple people to post at the same time. While you’re at it, you might want to get rid of your Victrola and try DVD’s, ROLF!

                So much for the genius of Mesa Constitutional Conservative! 🙂

              • truconserv says

                But he’s a useful idiot.

                He’s the embodiment of why wingnuts are not conservatives and should never be allowed to speak as if they are.

              • Conservative American says

                Ah, but YOU are a Marxist, TC, LOL! This is what YOU have to say about Karl Marx:

                ”truconserv says:
                March 3, 2012 at 6:00 am”

                “Marx wanted the citizens to be armed …”

                “Trains that run on time …”

                “Milk to be fresh …”

                Well, ain’t that all sweet and nice. The only problem is that your Karl Marx, the father of Communism and the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, unleashed this on the world:

                “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

                “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

                “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

                http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

                Have a nice day, Comrade! 🙂

              • truconserv says

                CA – you’re a useful idiot.

                Post some more spam. Go ahead. I dare ya.

              • Conservative American says

                Karl Marx, the father of Communism and the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, unleashed upon the world an ideology and an plan of attack on Capitalism which resulted in this:

                “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

                “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

                “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

                http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

                And what does TC have to say about the monster who unleashed this global carnage?

                ” truconserv says:
                March 3, 2012 at 6:00 am”

                “Marx wanted the citizens to be armed …”

                “Trains that run on time …”

                “Milk to be fresh …”

                And that is what a “True Marxist” sounds like!

                Have a nice day, “True Marxist”! 🙂

            • Conservative American says

              You wrote this, TC:

              “True Conservative says:
              February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

              “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

              “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

              “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

              And the man you are defending, the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, is responsible for unleashing this on the world:

              “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

              “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

              “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

              http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

              And all you have to say about Karl Marx is that, “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

              Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

            • Conservative American says

              Karl Marx, the father of Communism and the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, unleashed this on the world:

              “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

              “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

              “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

              http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

              And what does TC have to say about the man who came up with an ideology which resulted in the slaughter of 100 million people?

              ”truconserv says:
              March 3, 2012 at 6:00 am”

              “Marx wanted the citizens to be armed …”

              “Trains that run on time …”

              “Milk to be fresh …”

              You’re a Marxist making a very poor attempt to deceive SA readers into thinking that you are a Conservative.

              Have a nice day, Comrade! 🙂

  11. BTW, there is another competing bill that is also being considered that would let staff conceal carry on Univ or CC grounds only. No students. A CCW would also be required. This bill probably has a much better chance of passing. I have to look up the bill number.

  12. Is anyone privy to university crime stats that show how many prosecutions there were for having a concealed firearm on campus? One needs to balance the law with the penalty in order to decide what outweighs what. I would rather be alive with a $500 fine than a victim of violent crime, eh? I don’t make a habit of speeding either, but I can if I need to in an emergency.

  13. The problem with “all or nothing” absolutism is that it mostly results in nothing.

  14. Carl Hay says

    Very clever Tyler,

    You pretend to be a conservative, but, the pretense is threadbare.

    While you SAY you favor the right to keep and bear arms, yet you are opposed to any measure to institute that policy, unless its perfect.

    Since perfection is unattainable, the status quo is the only alternative.

    The truth is that you really don’t want any improvement in the status quo, and are merely engaged in dishonest rhetoric.

    Not surprising.

  15. Ghost of Friedman says

    Nice article.

    Always good to see Conservative American back giving lessons on how to be illogical. Of course, if you use the word “Marx” that means you’re a Marxist. And if a liberal newspaper quotes you, you must be a liberal.
    That makes as much sense as saying Taco Bell is tasty because McDonald’s is gross. Go google “non-sequitur” and read very, very closely. In fact, I’m not totally unsure that they haven’t posted a picture of you next to the term.

    Yet, now that I say this, I’m sure he’ll drum up some past quotes by yours truly and come to the
    inevitable conclusion that those quotes make me a liberal.

    Oh, and p2012p: Bitter much? Get over it. Turns out the world allows you to oppose Russel Pearce and still be a conservative, though it doesn’t seem like you’ve learned that yet. Which makes sense. You sacrifice principled analysis for tribalism.

    • Conservative American says

      Ah, yet another radical, left wing liberal flushed out of the bushes, LOL!

      No, it isn’t your quotes which make you a liberal. It’s your quotes which demonstrate that you are a liberal!

      GF is an amateur liberal. Let’s expose GF’s Communist debate tactics, shall we?

      GF wrote: “…if you use the word “Marx” that means you’re a Marxist.”

      This is a Communist debate tactic called “speaking for you opponent” and the purpose is to set up a strawman which can easily be knocked down. The only problem is that I never said that if you use the word “Marx” that means you’re a Communist. THESE QUOTES by TC mean that he is Pinko:

      “True Conservative says:
      February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am”

      “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

      “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

      “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

      GF wrote: “And if a liberal newspaper quotes you, you must be a liberal.”

      This is the “if/then” tactic again. “IF a liberal newspaper quotes you, THEN you must be a liberal.” And GF is using the tactic just as TC likes to use it; to reach a conclusion which is absurd on the face of it, thereby seeking to get Tyler off the hook.

      The REAL issue is NOT that a liberal reporter, STEPHEN LEMONS, or a liberal newspaper, the Phoenix New Times, has quoted Tyler Montague. The issue is that they used reports of Tyler’s actions and quotes from Tyler to make a case SUPPORTING their liberal arguments. That’s a lot different from quoting a Conservative for the purpose of attacking the Conservative or Conservatism. If STEPHEN LEMONS and the Phoenix New Times are quoting you and describing your activities to SUPPORT their liberal arguments, which side of the debate are you providing fuel for, the Conservative side or the liberal side?

      So all we are seeing from GF are the routine, classic Communist debate tactics which are also TC’s bread and butter. The more they write, the more you will see these same Communist tactics used over and over and over again. Why? Because, since the truth isn’t on their side, that is all they have!

      Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

  16. Fantastic Article.

    thanks for the good thoughts, you really capture and explain the issues well.

    btw, american conservative needs to get over the past……sour grapes big time.

    • Conservative American says

      Well, Fletch, it isn’t the past because Tyler Montague is still around and active in the present. Or hadn’t you noticed?

      • I’m happy we have logical people like TM around trying to do good.

        We have too many people that just sit around name calling and failing to use proper reason. Would you know anyone like that? 🙂

        Calling someone with a slightly different conservative opinion than yours a commie is a bit dramatic. We have larger battles to work on together.

        • Conservative American says

          Fletch wrote: “We have too many people that just sit around name calling and failing to use proper reason. Would you know anyone like that?”

          Why yes, Fletch: “And Russell Pearce stood up before the voters and convincingly made the case that he is a bully who exerts anger where we need influence; who exploits fear where we need thought.” – Tyler Montague

          Good example of name-calling and a complete absence of any fact or reason. Just mindless, empty attacking without any specific issues mentioned at all.

          That’s your man, Fletch! 🙂

          • TruConserv says

            CA: In all seriousness … do not understand just how unhinged you come off as?

            • Conservative American says

              To whom, TC, to a radical, left wing, Pinko liberal like you, LOL! People have your number, Pinko:

              “Alicia Gegner says:
              March 1, 2012 at 11:41 am”

              “the only people I know who use the term wingnuts are jackass lefties, even those who pose as conservatives. What a dufus. Hey TC, when you were talking about Marx, was it Groucho or Karl? Can you tell the difference?”

              “How come TC always stands up for the bad guys?”

              That’s any easy one, Alicia. Because TC IS a bad guy Pinko! 🙂

              • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

                Just because you keep putting smiley faces and writing “LOL” after your obnoxious comments, doesn’t mean you’re any less of a troll. Simmer down and let other people talk occasionally.

              • Conservative American says

                Just because you smell bad doesn’t alter your obnoxious comments, doesn’t mean that you’re any less of a Fig Newton. Simmer down because there isn’t any talking here, everything is in writing. So there! And I’m calling Dead Animal Pickup on you! 🙂

  17. “While you SAY you favor the right to keep and bear arms, yet you are opposed to any measure to institute that policy, unless its perfect.”

    That’s like when the RINOs say they are pro-life, with the exception of the mother’s health of course.

    mkay. Please define health.

Leave a Reply to TBone Cancel reply