Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Your Handy Gun Guide: Libraries No, Parks Yes

George Allen has a parting shot for Virginians and all Americans: He wants to put guns into America's national parks. Ok, well, that's just George in his saddle-up mode, looking for a way to reassert his adopted cowboy identity, right?

No such luck: Allen's impending departure from the Senate will not stop the effort to introduce weapons to national parks. No, Jim Webb, who last week displayed his own inability to control his impulses, is upfront about his own eagerness to get guns into America's most important vacation spots. (This is, as we saw in Webb's adolescent confrontation with the equally petulent leader of the free world, going to be a different kind of senator.) Webb supports the same bill that Allen is pushing.

Ok, so if you'd now be able to carry a gun in national parks, how about public libraries? In Virginia, state law already protects your right to shoot up a library should you find yourself incited by, I don't know, a heated exchange of ideas or something. Now some elected officials in Newport News want the state legislature to roll back that right: The city's own law prohibits guns in public libraries, while state law says guns are ok in libraries, but not in schools or courthouses. State Del. Mamye E. BaCote (D-Newport News) and state Sen. Mamie E. Locke (D-Hampton) plan to introduce bills in Richmond to ban guns from libraries.

"It makes no sense," BaCote told the Hampton Roads Daily Press. "Schools, courts, libraries. It's the same thing."
When BaCote and Locke introduced similar bills last year, they were defeated in committee, but the lawmakers are determined to try again: "It will just take a little bit more lobbying to win more folks over," Locke said. "Why would anyone need a gun in a library?"

By Marc Fisher |  December 6, 2006; 7:45 AM ET
Previous: The Next Level of Smoking Ban | Next: The District Relents: The Group Home Story


Please email us to report offensive comments.

If they ban guns from libraries but allow cigarettes as Marc tends to advocate, people wouldn't die in a hail of bullets but of a slow lingering death from inhaling second-hand smoke. As someone who does not favor either guns or cigarettes in libraries, I wonder whether Marc's chatter about the "nanny state" depends on whether he approves of the particular ban.

Posted by: Book Guy | December 6, 2006 8:30 AM

Actually Marc, the law gives you the right to carry, not the right to shoot up. That's still a crime. The right to carry for personal protection is kinda meaningless unless you can carry in places. The main area where you're likely to encounter difficulty is in transit from a place to and from your car so you need to have it on you. Instead of employing overheated rhetoric and smarmy condecendion, you might actually try to read up, ask questions of experts and educate yourself on the pro-gun side of the issue. But then that might challenge your certainty of righteousness.

Posted by: Stick | December 6, 2006 8:34 AM

We are the only Western nation with such liberal (or conservative, depending on how you look at it) gun laws. And we have rates of homicide and suicide by gunthat are off the charts compared to every other Western nation.

Am I the only one who thinks these two facts are connected?

Posted by: Jack | December 6, 2006 8:40 AM

Shoot up a librarian? What an idiotic thing to say. Move to Iraq - it may be better for you.

Posted by: Charles | December 6, 2006 9:07 AM

I agree with the move to allow firearms in National Parks. While backpacking/camping one is vulnerable to bear attacks, as well as criminals who may prey on those known to be unarmed. It especially makes sense in National Parks out west where brown bears and mountain lions can be a threat. So far as the shooting up the library comment, you are assuming that law abiding gun owners are criminals. Do you think the "Guns Prohibited" sign would really stop a psycho who wants to shoot up a school/park/library? Come on, give me a break.

Posted by: Sam | December 6, 2006 9:14 AM

Marc misses the point again - the bill would allow carry into national parks in states where it was otherwise legal. Does it make sense that you can carry to the grocery store but not in the woods?

And as for shooting up libraries, it was predicted that this would turn states into the "Old West." But with a majority of states now embracing "shall issue" permits, where is the sudden carnage? Answer: It hasn't happened. Crime has gone down.

Posted by: BDTLR, VA | December 6, 2006 9:23 AM

Note to Jack:

Take a look at the FBI's Annual National Crime Report before you announce that firearms-related killings and suicides are off the chart. Which chart are you drawing this conclusion from? If you want actual statistics, compare the violent crime reports between Washington DC and Northern Virginia. There are - and has been - a greater number of firearms-related deaths and injuries in the District of Columbia -- which has banned guns since 1972 -- than the counties of Fairfax,Arlington, Prince William, and Loudoun and the City of Alexandria combined in the "Shall Issue" Commonwealth of Virginia.

Posted by: Steve | December 6, 2006 9:39 AM

This is excellent. Now those people using federal parks to grow marijuana will be able to legally protect their "territory" with guns. This is real progress. All praise to the glory and wisdom of our Beneficient Lawmakers.

Posted by: CT | December 6, 2006 9:44 AM

Marc, as usual has put his mouth in motion before putting his brain in gear. Virginia is home to the Shenandoah National Park, which stretches for 110 miles from Front Royal to Charlottesville. There are two routes around the park and two (211, and 33) that go through the park. Federal law prohibits posession of fire arms on National Park property INLUNDING THROUGH ROADS. Currently anyone in say Culpepper who wants to travel to Harrisonburg with a fire arm, for hunting or personal protection or target shooting, must eatieh make a 250 mile detour or violate federal law. We also have the rediculous situation in parts of Richmond and parts of northern Virginia where park property lines run down the middle of the street and a person can violate federal law by changing lanes.

Finally, if you read some of the backpacking magazines, you learn that bear spray may work against a black bear but if you are in Glacial NP facing a grizzley, you need a large caliber handgun. They are like umbrellas. You hope you never need to use them; but when the time comes, their is no substitute.

Posted by: Woodbridge Va | December 6, 2006 9:45 AM

This bill is even more important in the DC area than it is in many rural areas. Under current law, an otherwise law abiding Virginia citizen, exercising his constitutional right to bear arms becomes an unintentional felon the instant he turns his car onto GW Parkway. Since the parkway is part of the national park system, posession of a firearm is forbidden. To avoid breaking the law a McLean resident going to Alexandria must either go around the beltway or travel via surface streets. Even then when he gets to Alexandria he better tread carefully since many parts of that historic town are part of the NPS. Similar national park system "gun free" zones exist all over the metro area, Manassas Battlefield, TR Island, Great Falls, etc. This is totally unreasonable. Law abiding citizens should not be stripped of the ability to defend themselves and their families in the face of criminals which, by definition, ignore the laws anyway and not only carry, but misuse firearms in the commision of violent crimes.

Posted by: Mike in Reston | December 6, 2006 9:48 AM

What about the right to arm bears? sorry... had to say it. Seriously though- what about the right to carry? Criminals will do so anyway, so why not allow people to protect themselves? The innocent good people would have a chance to defend themselves against the bad people who wouldn't normally visit libraries anyway... Simply stated, as above, you are more likely to need protection to and from places where you are not allowed it. What good is the right to bear arms if you are only allowed to do so at home- and even then, shoot to kill lest a burglar sue you!

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 9:53 AM

It's a slippery slope, people, first you ban guns from National Parks and libraries, then the next thing you know you can't bring them into day care centers, nurseries or church!

Posted by: Will | December 6, 2006 9:54 AM

Actually Will they're already prohibited in churches.

Posted by: Stick | December 6, 2006 9:56 AM

Oh, joy! When gun-packing Sam hears a rustle in the woods, he's going to shoot to "protect himself" from the big, bad bears and cats. Hikers will need to carry a bullet-removal kits with them when their hiking through the woods.

Also, I would imagine that when a family is on vacation in the mountains, the gun will be less secure than it would be in a home. Are there measures to secure the guns so children doesn't get ahold of them? Or did the good old boys not consider that?

Posted by: slm | December 6, 2006 10:01 AM

Get educated!! As little as you need to know is this: in Virginia, you can ONLY use gun (i.e. actually shoot at someone) in self defense, if you have no way to escape the situation, and you would have to show that you felt threat to your life. Sayinig that (quote) In Virginia, state law already protects your right to shoot up a library should you find yourself incited by, I don't know, a heated exchange of ideas or something. (end quote) is absolute off the wall comment. YOU DON't KNOW was the only correct phrase in the article. Shame is the least you should have.

So get it over and done with, Marc. You bring so much nonsense to these pages, I get tired reading it and see people follow your way.

Kudos to all those commenting about the criminals who could care less of what is allowed, where is allowed, etc. They are criminals and chose to be that way. Look at DC - no guns allowed, but more crime happens everyday, because the Criminals know the law-abiding people don't have a way to defend themselves.

Posted by: Stop this nonsense... | December 6, 2006 10:07 AM

Actually Will they're already prohibited in churches.

Posted by: Stick

Actually, Stick, it says "you can carry if you have a good reason for that". Good reason?- here you go- there've been so many angry men entering the church in the middle of the service and shooting anyone blindly, that I have a good reason to fear for my family's safety and feel need to protect them.

Posted by: Churches | December 6, 2006 10:09 AM

State Sen. Mamie Locke asks the wrong question. The right question would be: "why would we ban guns from libraries?" I'm not aware of any threat to public safety stemming from people patronizing libraries while armed.

Posted by: BSH | December 6, 2006 10:10 AM

Hey CT. NO, the dope growers in the woods would not be able to legally use guns to protect their operations. The bill does not decriminalize posession or use of firearms while committing a criminal act. Posession or use of a firearm in the commision of a crime is a crime in itself. So stop blaring your anti-gun agenda at us. The law only decriminalizes possession that would be legal in surrounding/adjoining jurisdictions.

Posted by: Mike in Reston | December 6, 2006 10:24 AM

"In Virginia, state law already protects your right to shoot up a library should you find yourself incited by, I don't know, a heated exchange of ideas or something."

I'd be interested to see that statute. Can you provide a reference?

Posted by: Les | December 6, 2006 10:33 AM

When we camped throughout the area in the Boy Scouts in the 1970s we had a macho mantra, "Only whiners carry guns." I find gun advocates to still be as shrill and whiny and stuck in the 70s. On my uncle's farm, every year, he gets a bullet in his house- breaking a window, breaking siding, breaking lights, injuring his livestock. He lives near hunting land and used to hunt deer and rabbits. The police have never, ever, EVER prosecuted anyone for one of those stray bullets. If anyone thinks rural police enforce gun laws, they don't live in the real world- those laws on the books are unenforced by Sheriff Lived-Here-All-My-Life and that's why we need new restrictions at the state and federal level. I'm tired of my Mom calling me petrified that some unlawful hunter who pretends he's following the law kills my uncle, aunt, or one of their cattle.

Posted by: Bethesdan | December 6, 2006 10:33 AM

What do you expect? This guy is anti-gun and so he's going to present this as a loony idea. Courts, libraries, and schools are not the same. Some people who go to court get sentenced to 592 years in prison. Seems common sense to me that the person shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun into court. As for libraries, guns have the same purpose as anywhere else. Protection from scumbag criminals. That's the whole point Marc, if some psycho starts shooting up a library and I'm in it, I want to be able to shoot back. If someone tries to rob me while I'm walking from my car to the library, I want to be able to save the tax payers some money.
And Jack, I doubt you're the only one who has made the connection, but the fact is that the crime rate usually goes down in every place where right to carry is implemented. There are a whole lot of scumbag criminals running rampant looking for their next victim. Personally I believe relying on my 1911 Colt .45 Auto is more prudent than relying on hope and luck. Hope and luck haven't been my strong suit, so I'll go with Colt. Hope and luck can and will let me down. None of my guns will. And if you think gun control is the answer, I've got three words for you, Washington, D.C. Among the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and lead the nation in per capita homicides year after year. I think there's a connection there Jack.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 10:35 AM

I'm not aware of any threat to public safety stemming from people patronizing libraries while armed.

You can't be serious. In 2003 I walked into a car dealer in Fairfax. A customer pulls out a gun and shows it to the salesman and talks about how he just got a permit for it. I said, "Oh my god, he has a gun!" and left immediately. About a dozen other people did as well including salesmen getting away from the guy. Only a lunatic would unholster a weapon in a public space. How much money did that dealership lose that day? Who knows? but everyone on this board would agree that the appearance of a gun in public is an open threat to everyone within shooting distance. That's why we walk on sidewalks, because only an idiot would walk in the street with cars. Only an idiot would stay in a car dealership where a patron has a gun.

Posted by: Bethesdan | December 6, 2006 10:41 AM

Only whiners carry guns has to be one of the stupidest phrases I've ever heard in my entire life. What does it mean? How does it make any sense? What makes sense to me, is this. You, Mr. gun owners are whiners, get accosted by an armed criminal. Not only does he rob you, with a machete, wouldn't even need a gun, then he decides he's going to have sex with you and kill you. Next thing you know, you're whining to St Peter about why me? Same guy accosts me w/machete. I put four or five in his chest and go about my business. I don't see what I'd have to whine about. I'd still be alive and have all of my possessions and wouldn't have been raped by another man. I think you'd be the one whining genius. I'm heading over to Gilbert Guns at lunch time to fire off a few dozen rounds. Why don't you stop by and tell us all what kind of whiners we are? I've got the .45 today as well as the .44 S&W Model 629. These guns are sweet and guaranteed to stop scum in their tracks.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 10:42 AM

As for libraries, guns have the same purpose as anywhere else. Protection from scumbag criminals. That's the whole point Marc, if some psycho starts shooting up a library and I'm in it

That psycho is going to be you, isn't it? Is this a "cry for help" email? Talk to someone about your gun and weapon fantasies before someone gets hurt. I'm not joking. This post is one of the biggest "cries for help" that I've read in ages. Talk to someone, ok? We're thinking about you.

Posted by: Bethesdan | December 6, 2006 10:44 AM

Why don't you stop by and tell us all what kind of whiners we are? I've got the .45 today as well as the .44 S&W Model 629.


Did you just threaten me with physical violence? Do I need to report this to the police? Do you know what you just wrote in a public forum that the police can read?

Posted by: Bethesdan | December 6, 2006 10:45 AM

That's because VA has common sense laws and you're allowed to have a gun in a car dealership. If you don't like it, don't go to VA. Reminds me of the story that was reported in this paper a couple of years back about four of five guys going into an Applebees in Fairfax for lunch and all had holstered sidearms. Same reaction, people panicking and called the police. Police came, said they're allowed to carry the weapons, either deal with it or find somewhere else to eat. Quetion: did the person at the dealership threaten anyone with the gun? commit any kind of crime? Neither did the guys at Applebees. Just because we carry them doesn't mean we're suddenly going to have an uncontrollable urge to start shooting. More guns equals less crime, it's common sense.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 10:46 AM

Or better yet, maybe we can submit a FOIA request to find out who Glen is so we can do something to protect ourselves from him.

Posted by: Maryland | December 6, 2006 10:47 AM

"Just because we carry them doesn't mean we're suddenly going to have an uncontrollable urge to start shooting."

Yet, you made the statement for someone to meet you at the gun shop at lunchtime......Wow! Get yourself some help, buddy.

Posted by: Really | December 6, 2006 10:49 AM

Yes genius, I know what I said. You really are clueless. It's not illegal moron. Where's the threat idiot? I invited you to a public place so you can tell all of us gun owners how we're whiners. I didn't say and when you do one of us will shoot you. First off you're not going to have the balls to show up. Second, I'm not going to commit murder if you do, I'm going to ridicule you and call you names. That's legal. And report it to whomever you want. Call the FBI, the ATF, the police, whomever you want. I know the law fool, it's what I do for a living. I recommend calling every police agency you can think of. I'm so terrified. Tell them I'll be at Gilbert Guns in Rockville around 12:15 and I'm going to fire all kinds of rounds into torso shaped targets. Damn youre dumb.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 10:52 AM


Why should lawful users of a tool be hampered due to the unlawful acts of others. I don't assume you would tolerate the state taking away your car because your neighbor got drunk and ran over someone would you? Constitutionally this would be easier for the state to do since there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing your right to keep and bear a mode of transportation.

There is however a guarantee of my right to keep and bear arm in the US Bill of Rights. Please don't give me the usual guff about this applying only to the militia. The amendment does not say "The right of the militia..." it says "The right of the PEOPLE..."

The fact that your gramma's local Barney Fife doesn't enforce the existing laws is no argument to inflict more laws upon the public.

Posted by: Mike in Reston | December 6, 2006 10:57 AM

to all you pansy morons I've been carrying guns my entire life and have been hunting since I was a child. You people are so clueless that it's amazing. An FOIA to find out who I am? That's astounding it's so stupid. Who I am is none of your business you complete and utter fool. If you want to know who I am, come on by for lunch, already told you where I'd be. You don't need protection from me your tardness. I'm not a criminal and I don't commit crimes. I carry a weapon so that if someone tries to victimize me I have a choice. If you live somewhere where you have the choice, make it for yourself. But the law says I'm allowed to carry. Again, if you have a problem with me carrying, you can certainly walk up to me and start yelling give me that gun or I'm going to kick your ass and take it. I don't have a problem with that. Gilbert Guns, lunchtime today. I plan to obey all laws and excercise my RIGHT to some target practice. Anyone who wants to show up there and call me names, try to strip me of my guns, or just to hang out and shoot, it's fine by me. It's a public place, anyone who wants to except ex-cons and loons are permitted. If you don't think I should have guns, come and tell me why and then you can have the opportunity to try taking them away from me if you're so inclined. doesn't bother me any. And you can think whatever you want of me, the law says I can have guns. And I do. A whole bunch of them.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 11:00 AM

I don't wish hardship on anyone, but I would love to see how you anti gun geniuses are going to react when someone comes up, produces a weapon and says give me everything you've got. Then they say, oh and by the way, I'm going to drag your girl over here in the bushs and have my way with her. You know what you're going to do? Nothing, because that's all you can do. If it happens to me, I'm going to eliminate the threat. Go whine about that. God I hope all of you crybabies are women. Well, then again, regardless of official gender, I consider you to be a woman.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 11:04 AM

Mike in Reston,

I understand your concern about the roads that runs through parks. They're usually maintained by the state so I really don't know if they're federal roads or state roads. It just adds to the confusion.

Posted by: WB | December 6, 2006 11:07 AM

a cry for help. Hilarious. No, I'm not going to execute library patrons. Generally I don't go to the library that often, but when I have I liked all of the people there. I'm only allowed to shoot humans if they threaten me with deadly force. I've carried a firearm for years and haven't had to point it at a human yet. I hope I never have to, but if I do, I will be prepared to do so and whatever else is necessary. That's what men like me do.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 11:08 AM


Thats true for a lot of areas but the state guys can enforce these kind of laws (or call in the federal guys). Drive on the GW Parkway though and you'll see NPS Cops everywhere...

Posted by: Mike in Reston | December 6, 2006 11:11 AM

You stated:

"We are the only Western nation with such liberal (or conservative.......) gun laws. And we have rates of homicide and suicide by gun that are off the charts compared to every other Western nation.

Am I the only one who thinks these two facts are connected?"

I hope you ARE the only one.

This is a nation that CODDLES its criminals and sets them free to go out and do worse. It is UNLAWFUL for a felon to buy a gun here -- they get them illegally -- they will get guns NO MATTER what lawas are on the books -- because THEy are outlaws.

The Federal Firwearms laws already on the books CAN deal effectively with these criminals -- but is it enforced???? Rarely. So, how about going out and campaigning for THAT!!??? Got it???

When my mom went out driving by herself, I was GLAD she had the ability (and the training!) to protect herself from people like those criminals.

Posted by: Ace | December 6, 2006 11:12 AM

Hey Glen,

Does that somehow make you feel better? knowing that you are carrying not one, but two guns? Just in case, you know.

Posted by: northzax | December 6, 2006 11:18 AM

We need guns in libraries and here's why. Last week I went to my local branch of the Alexandria public library to use a computer. I signed up and then waited for a computer to come available. When my name was finally called the computer I was assigned didn't work! Well, the woman in charge wanted to make me go to the end of the line and wait for a new computer. I just left. If I'd had a gun I could have expressed my frustration by shooting the place up. That is why we need guns in the library.

Posted by: me | December 6, 2006 11:22 AM

Glen, you are clearly a misogynist homophobe with low self-esteem and anger management issues. You need therapy, not guns. Seriously.

Posted by: I'm just sayin' | December 6, 2006 11:24 AM

Glen, I don't favor keeping law-abiding citizens from owning guns. I don't see any to carry one with me, though. I suppose that makes me a crybaby, a pansy, or a fool. It strikes me as odd, though, that someone who is apparently afraid to walk the streets without his gun is throwing these insults at others. I've worked in some of the nation's most dangerous neighborhoods, and I've never carried a gun. I pay attention to what's going on around me. I've never once been threatened.

Posted by: Steve | December 6, 2006 11:28 AM

It's 11:30. Glen's probably on his way to ye ole gun shoppe. He's probably gripping his do-dads as he drives. He's a REAL MAN, you know!

Posted by: Maryland | December 6, 2006 11:31 AM


but what if someone calls you a whiner? huh? what you going to do then? just take it? huh?

Posted by: northzax | December 6, 2006 11:31 AM

Hey Ace-

I know a place where there is no gun control at all. Citizens roam the streets with every possible firearm they can get their hands on, everyone is assumed to be carrying a weapon at all times. It must be the politest, lowest crime neighborhood in the world!

can you guess where it is?

Posted by: northzax | December 6, 2006 11:35 AM

I'm with Glen on this one- good people have the right to be prepared to defend themselves against the bad people who do not care what the laws are. Limiting that right to defend yourself just gives the criminals a safe territory within wich to operate.

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 11:39 AM

Hey genius, I'm carrying two guns because I'm going to the range today and want to shoot them both. Normally I just carry my .45 auto, it'll knock down anything I might encounter. But when I go to the range I take two or several. I want to get my money's worth.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 11:39 AM

PS- Do you carry a spare tire in your car, just in case you hit a nail? The odds are against hitting a nail, due to their small size, and the fact that a nail on a highway would constitute litter, which would be a crime. So many resources are wasted in producing spare tires that may or may not be used to help people who may encounter the one needle in a haystack of the highway on your trip... unfortunately, you cannot be one hundred per-cent sure you will never have to use it, that is why it is there taking up space in your vehicle. People feel the same way about being prepared against encountering that one bad human needle. It is your life, and it is your choice whether or not to be prepared. Label it paranoid if you want, but do not force your choice on someone else, so long as their choice does not violate your rights.

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 11:47 AM

imjustsayin are you related to bill frist? amazing that you can render such a diagnosis remotely. You must be on the cover of magazines and a Nobel prize winner I would guess. Of course you're wrong, and there's no evidence to support your conclusions, but chances are you probably don't know what half those words mean. My opinion of you: moron. Here's for all of you whiny girls. I'm not getting any help, because I don't need any. I'm in touch with reality, not living in a fantasy world like you are. I'm going to carry weapons everywhere I go and if confronted by scum I will use them. I'm not afraid to walk the street without a gun genius, I just like having it in case I need it. That's why they pass RTC laws where they have them. It's not rocket science. And steve you're basically conceding my point. You prefer to rely on hope and good luck. I prefer to rely on Colt or Smith and Wesson. The law says that's my choice. And Maryland if you want to find out if I'm a real man sometime, let me know, I'd be glad to meet you somewhere to discuss it. I won't bring a gun, just me. Anytime killer. I like meeting people like you and seeing how big that mouth is in person.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 11:48 AM

It must be bleeding heart liberal time for Marc today. Heaven help you Marc if you ever wrote a column responsibly. Instead you prey on people's worst fears to make your misguided and ill formed conclusions. The Post should offer you a buyout so you can follow your calling and write for the National Enquirer or some other tawdry tabloid.

Posted by: give me a break | December 6, 2006 11:50 AM


Lots of Grizzlies in Rockville these days?

Posted by: northzax | December 6, 2006 11:52 AM

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

United States Constitution, Second Ammendment

Don't like it? Move to Cuba.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 11:53 AM

Give me a break, you mean this isn't a tabloid? The only news I see here is on celebrites, what gadgets are in, what has been banned, what causes cancer, and politicians- who are celebrities anyway. Cell phone bling is the headline for gosh sakes and we're here debating whether people should have the right to defend themselves against criminals. LOL it's so funny!

There are sheep, there are wolves, and there are sheep-dogs. The sheep are scared of the sheep-dogs and constantly complain about them, but the moment a wolf shows up, the sheep cower behind their sheep-dog. This is society in a nut shell. Choose your role.

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 11:56 AM

If there are any grizzlies in Rockville I haven't seen them. However, there's a place right around the corner that's calling my name for lunch. What they have is paper targets that I can pay to shoot. And that's what I'm going to do. I didn't buy my guns for grizzlies. I bought my rifles for hunting and some target shooting. I bought the many pistols I own to target shoot and for any vermin I might encounter in life. Two legged, four legged, doesn't matter, I've got a vermin gun to cover it. So all of you pansies go ahead and keep whining. I'm going to go do some shooting. Where in the hell's the nampalm in the afternoon to get me in the mood? Ah well, the pansy girls on here have gotten me in the mood enough. Gotta grab my doo dads and my pistols and go. Yall have fun now. I'm going to.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 12:07 PM


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

United States Constitution, Second Ammendment

Don't like it? Move to Cuba.

: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.:

Don't like it, Mr. Scott? move to Cuba.

Posted by: northzax | December 6, 2006 12:09 PM

So now how long is it going to be until someone shoots up a library in VA and when arrested, their defense is going to be, Marc Fisher reported in the Wash Post that the right to do so in VA is protected?
That's quite a leap there. The law in VA says that you're allowed to carry a weapon in a library, not to use it at will. Typical distortion from this anti gunner. Fisher you should remove that lie from your article. And, why in the world would anyone need a gun in a library, leads to the question, why would anyone need a gun anywhere. Uh, there's this category of people that they call criminals. Sound familiar?

Posted by: Jeffrey | December 6, 2006 12:19 PM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

United States Constitution, Second Ammendment

Don't like it? Move to Cuba"

What I find kind of interesting is the idea that all the gun owners are going to defend the country (against invaders?). Think about our activity in Iraq. The non-uniformed individuals defending Iraq against the foreign invaders are considered "unlawful combatants" because they're not "uniformed" so they're not entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. So, the idea that I've heard expressed by others that every American citizen is a member of the "militia" for purposes of the 2nd amendment seems to be in conflict with our military philosophy of who is or is not a lawful combatant and who is or is not entitled to protections under U.S recognized laws of armed conflict. Just a thought

Posted by: me | December 6, 2006 12:23 PM

People against gun ownership, answer me this question. If the ability of owning guns by citizens causes school shooting, homicides (which are way down in this country as well as all violent crime) and general mayhem; then why is it that almost every household in Switzerland has a fully automatic weapon and their murder rate is almost non-existent?

Posted by: Silmiril | December 6, 2006 12:27 PM

Me, interesting comment and attempt to twist logic, however- people are proposing not just the use of weapons against invaders, but as protection against criminals. If the civilians in Iraq or any other oppressive country had the right to bear arms, they wouldn't necessarily find themselves under the rule of a dictator like Saddam, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, or your pick of oppressive regime. The fact that the law abiding citizens were not allowed weapons made them easier for the dictators and extremists to exploit.

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 12:30 PM

Wow, didn't know that about the Swiss. I guess they take their frustration out on their cheese! :)

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 12:35 PM

I assume that everybody who owns guns has them so they can join state militias. That is the purpose of the amendment... "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Somebody please tell me where in the amendment it says that people have a right to bear arms for their self defense, to hunt, or to go target-shooting?

Posted by: 2nd amendment | December 6, 2006 12:39 PM

THAT's how the holes get into swiss cheese? WOW!!!

Posted by: Gouda | December 6, 2006 12:39 PM


The Swiss example is a funny one. First off, all those guns are owned by the military, since every adult male is in the 'well regulated militia." second off, everyone has military training on the use of the weapon. Third off, and this is a biggie, every single gun is registered and regulated. Any bullet fired from one of these weapons can be traced back to the exact gun that fired it, 90+% of the time. Fourth off, the guns stay in houses, not on people's hips.

So yes, if you are willing to have your guns and ammo tagged 100% traceable, go through two years of firearms training and be subject to call-up for the military at any time, then the Swiss model is for you.

You game?

Posted by: northzax | December 6, 2006 12:40 PM


Everyone Swiss citizen who is physically capable is a member of their Natural Guard. They each are required by law to have their militiary's automatic weapon as well as two crates of ammunition. Most households in Israel also have Uzi's and their murder rate is also way down probably because they live with enough violence on a daily basis. The problem isn't about guns, it's about our society. The gun haters don't want to admit that because maybe they would have to take some reponsibility and raise their children correctly. Also I find it really strange that Hollywood is mostly anti-gun yet they fill our TV's and Movies with an extreme amount of violence which some studies suggest may contribute to violent behavior in some individuals. So it's ok for themto promote violence in others but not ok for them to allow me to defend myself from the problems they create...

Posted by: Silmiril | December 6, 2006 12:45 PM

This is where I would say how mandatory military service- even if it were just non-deployable garrison duty- would help bring some discipline and maturity to our country...

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 12:48 PM

" In Virginia, state law already protects your right to shoot up a library", it doesn't.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 12:49 PM

And Northzax where did I ever state that I was against gun registration or training in order to be able to own a weapon? You see the problem isn't about guns it's our society. We are too busy making money to raise our children properly. If the problem was about guns, wouldn't they jump into the Swiss citizens hands and cause them to start killiing each other?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 12:49 PM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

United States Constitution, Second Ammendment

Don't like it? Move to Cuba."

Sound like a call for regulations on arms to me. After all, it doesn't say Dudes with shotguns and sixpacks or individuals, it sasy a WELL REGULATED militia. Who regulates such things? My aunt Sally? No, the feds do. And liast time i checked, militias were more than one person.

Don't like it? Move to Iraq.

Posted by: Will | December 6, 2006 12:50 PM

Chris, I didn't know I was "twisting" anything. I don't feel strongly about gun ownership one way or another. I merely thought is was an interesting point that our "militia" would not be in compliance with current laws of armed conflict since they're not in uniform. The point you made didn't really address that. As for gun ownership, I believe that the constitution (rightly or wrongly) protects it. But, really deep down inside for all that gun owners like to talk about personal security, I think what they're really protecting is there vulnerable since of manhood.

Posted by: Me | December 6, 2006 12:55 PM

2nd amendment that's quite a moniker for someone who appears to be totally clueless about the law. You might notice that things have changed a little bit since 1750. If you haven't noticed, trust me, things have changed. Gun laws are left up to the states to decide. That's why in DC you can't own a firearm, which appears to be working at optimum level since they consistenly lead the nation in per capita homicides. In MD you can have them but the restrictions are many. In VA you can carry on your side or concealed if you go through the steps to obtain a permit. and so on. The 2nd Amendment is rarely relevant when it comes to gun ownership or RTC. The law of the particular state is what matters.

Posted by: David | December 6, 2006 12:57 PM

"Generally I don't go to the library that often" - Glen

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me about our friend Glen.

what an ultramaroon.

Posted by: dc | December 6, 2006 12:57 PM


My suggestion to you is don't lump all gun owners into the same bucket and actually do some reading on the 2nd Ammendment. The Federal and State Govenments do regulate firearms and don't forget the second part of the line, i.e. "people" which corresponds to all citizens. My advice is to read the writings of Mason and Hamiliton and prior to the founding of the Bill of Rights. That way you can educate yourself on the rationale of the admendments from the authors point of view.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 12:57 PM

Glen ought to be back from target shootin soon. I wager two wedges of swiss cheese that he calls us all pansies, morons, and women for not showing up.

Posted by: Maryland | December 6, 2006 1:03 PM

Yes, beacuse I'm just a big dummy and never read Mason, or Hamilton or Richard Lee. Have you read Madison? What do you think of Jefferson ordering a census of all military weapons in 1803? America had no problem with it then, care to have that now?

What about US v. Miller (1939)? Read that one?

Posted by: Will | December 6, 2006 1:07 PM

Me, I'm a gun owner and I was a man way before I owned a gun. Anyone who thinks buying a gun is going to make them a man shouldn't. I hunt, but I also have guns for personal security for myself and my home. I read the papers, and people are victims of crimes every minute of every day. I don't want to ever find myself in a position where I'm thinking, I wish I had a gun. However, I might end up in a situtation like that as many people do. If I do, I plan to be prepared to deal with it by being armed. If you feel comfortable taking just your mouth to a gunfight, go for it. I prefer to have a level playing field, especially since the criminal has already decided to ignore the law. Most criminals just want your money, or your car, or whatever they're after. Some want that plus your life. Good luck sweet talking one into accepting Jesus as their personal savior and forgetting the whole thing. I'll take my chances with a gun instead.

Posted by: David | December 6, 2006 1:07 PM

Glen said,

"It's a public place, anyone who wants to except ex-cons and loons are permitted."

Apparently, he won't be enjoying their services today. Although that may be an insult to loons everywhere.

Posted by: If it talks like a loon . . . | December 6, 2006 1:08 PM

Who knew: crime sprees in Harrisonburg and Culpepper?

Glen's not bright enough to figure it out, so I'll be blunt: when they say "whiners" they mean "tiny penis"...

And as for crime in DC? It's not the guns; it's all those 3/5 people in the Constitution. Right, Mr. LaPierre?

Posted by: Charles Whitman | December 6, 2006 1:11 PM

I can understand the idea of arming oneself, especially in the home, where one could legitimately get a drop on a burglar, but do you really think you'll be able to pull your gun during a mugging? What's more likely, you get the mugger or he gets your gun and there's another gun on the streets? You would literally have to walk around with the gun out and ready to go to get a drop on most muggers. I'm just asking. Maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by: Will | December 6, 2006 1:11 PM

If you want to reduce Gun related crime and the number of guns in criminal hands then try enforcing the Federal Laws on using firearms in the commision of crimes. In other words you get tried in Federal Court as well as State Court. They did this in Richmond, VA a number of years back when their gun murder rate was extremely high. Near the end of the enforcement period the police found that the drug dealers were no longer carrying guns because it was an automatice long term sentence for them if they were caught.

Posted by: Silmiril | December 6, 2006 1:12 PM

Youre right on one point Maryland, I just got back. What a rousing good time one can have at the range. So glad they opened a range right around the corner from work, I can slip over on my lunch break and just unload round after round. There's nothing quite like it. I call 'em like i see em. If people say stupid things, I will call them moron. If they say things that indicate they are womenly pansies, I will point that out as well. When I came out and the doctor slapped me I slapped him back. Been this way ever since. Don't start trouble, but not running from it either. Where I grew up, we battled often and we stood up for ourselves and didn't take any trash from anyone. Not planning on starting now. And I didn't call anyone a name, so I think you owe me some swiss cheese. Can I get some thin sliced ham with that? Rye bread with a little deli mustard? You know squeezing that trigger stimulates the appetite.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 1:15 PM

"Glen ought to be back from target shootin soon. I wager two wedges of swiss cheese that he calls us all pansies, morons, and women for not showing up."

I like pansies, I'm a woman and I used to be married to a moron. I don't own a gun but I am a Air Force veteran which means I had something like one day of weapons training. Hee Hee. No really, it was more like 4 days over 22 years.

Posted by: Me | December 6, 2006 1:17 PM

What about school libraries?

Posted by: dlc | December 6, 2006 1:22 PM

Well shame on me for assuming that you hadn't read the Federalist Papers or any of Hamilton's or Mason's work. I should have also refered to Madision not Mason when I referenced the Federalist Papers. Madison writes: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms" And Hamiliton writes: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." As far as the Scott decision is concerned the Supreme Court ruled that a sawed off shotgun doesn't have a military purpose so it therefore isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment correct? Also didn't Richard Lee write: "Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 1:23 PM

charles whitman if you're interested in the size of my penis and you're anywhere near montgomery county just let me know and I'll be glad to show it to you. One thing you'll notice about me is that I believe what i say. Enough to put my money where my mouth is. Not bright enough? How bright are you chucky? I'm in the top 10% on the Stanford/Binet, and top 2% on the Wecshler and am a member of the Metropolitan Washington chapter of Mensa. To get in, you have to take their version of the test, although I took the test originally when I lived in TX. Let's meet somewhere and after I show you my large penis we'll both take the test and see how smart chucky really is. We'll keep the wager between us, but it will involve our penises since you seem to be interested in them. I'm willing to put your words to the test. Are you?

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 1:24 PM

"And I didn't call anyone a name"

Wow, all that shootin must have stunted the memory area of that little pea brain of yours.

Posted by: Maryland | December 6, 2006 1:25 PM

Just because you pass an intelligence test doesn't mean that you have common sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 1:28 PM

ifittalkslikealoon, you're only prohibited from owning firearms if you're certified as a loon. Your garden variety loon is allowed to have as many weapons as he can afford. Just to prove the point to another genius like yourself, that one can act like a complete and utter loon and still have a gun I conducted an experiment once. I went to the range and while my friend was talking to the counter person I kept rolling my head and staring at nothing in particular and kept muttering, must kill, must kill, must kill. When it came my turn, since I had money I was given ammo and a spot to shoot. While I was shooting I jumped up and down and yelled, Kill, Kill, Kill, over and over. Not one word was spoken to me. I stayed for my lunch hour, shot a few dozen rounds and left. Been back there 30 times since. I'm allowed to have all of the guns I want and buy a new one every time i can. Your looniness has to be documented in order for the state to deny you the purchase of a firearm. Just acting crazy doesn't do it. Don't you just love America?

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 1:30 PM


My point is that as I read it, the Founding Fathers wanted each citizen to have the right to bear arms regardless of whether they were in a Militia or not. The Scott Decision doesn't state one way or another whether you have to be Militia to own a weapon. From what I have read it was a narrow decision. Oh and btw, where did I ever state that that I was against gun registration?

Posted by: Silmiril | December 6, 2006 1:32 PM

sorry december 6, but I think even george bush can PASS an intelligence test. he can't score better than 90% of the people on it though. I've got plenty of common sense. What have I said that indicates I don't? Maryland you're pathetic. I would wager that I'm smarter than you. Also, you talk a lot of trash over the internet. Why don't we meet somewhere and see what kind of badass killer you are in person? I know of the perfect spot. See, I'm used to people talking trash when they can't back it up, happens all the time. But being a real smart pea brain type, I know a way to test just how macho and tough someone really is. You a badass Maryland? Just say the word and we can meet and find out for sure. I go to a place every single Saturday and twice during the week where the badasses hang out. It's one of the few spots in America where you can go full contact and not be arrested or sued. They call it a Dojo, but being a badass killer I guess you already know all about that. All you have to do is sign a waiver, which I've signed most Saturdays for the last 20 years or so. I'd love to take you sometime. You can tell me what a pea brain loser I am. At least for about 2 seconds anyway. Come on toughie, show Daddy how bad you are. Bring that big mouth and you can have a chance to kick my ass in front of a few dozen people.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 1:40 PM

Your are right, noname. It is our society. Any society in which there is massive income inequality and large numbers of people who have very good reason to live without hope of a better lot, is going to have problems. This, of course, is why only the aristocracy was allowed weapons in the good old days (in 1700's London, possession of a sword by a non-aristocrat was punishible by death) I am fairly certain that when the Founders said the 'right of the people' what they really meant was the right of white landowning men (since that's what they meant about everything else) I don't recall, for instance, slaves or indentured servants being granted the right to bear arms, and I'm pretty sure they didn't mean for the urban poor to be armed. on the streets.

They wanted arms as a guarantee that the government would not use force against them to take their property and rights, as was done in the aristocratic societies of Europe. That's all. They never forsaw an urbanized society with large numbers of firearms, and I think they would be, rightly, horrified by it.

Posted by: northzax | December 6, 2006 1:43 PM

Here's another log on the fire. I voted straight Democrat in the last election. In theory I have no problem with gun ownership. In fact, I have considered owning one myself.

The problem is that, as some of the posts have proven today, people are not rational creatures. It's not just the US. If you want to compare us to Europe and other Western nations, fine, go ahead. But let's look at the complete history of Europe, shall we? Maybe their gun laws are different but they have less than a stellar track record when it comes to being the champions of humanity. Also laws mean jack - some cities that prohibit guns have the highest incidences of gun-related crimes. Lastly, we actually do have a lot of laws pertaining to guns on the books. We just suck at enforcing them.

My problem with guns is not the gun itself. It is our society's general lack of willingness to take any sort of responsibility for their activities. Look at Columbine, look at what happened at the police station in Virginia, the events go on and on. You are going to actually tell me the parents didn't know what was happening there? Please. Get a clue.

Unfortunately, people are too quick to act on anger and fear and then not want to take the consequences. And with a gun, those consequences are sometimes very permanent.

So this means the actions of a few are ruining it for all of us.

Posted by: BlogBunny | December 6, 2006 1:47 PM

and bethesdan, just to clarify for you since you're clueless about the law, even inviting Maryland to the Dojo doesn't rise to the level of a threat. A threat is telling someone that you're going to perpetrate bodily harm against them. Inviting someone to spar at the Dojo in front of dozens of witnesses isn't prohibited by law. That's despite the fact that one can take a pretty good beating on those mats. I go full contact, but they have different levels for those not inclined to do so. I've had plenty talk trash, but for some odd reason something always comes up come Sat morning when it's time to put up or shut up.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 1:55 PM


That was my post and I am glad you agree with me that we have major problems in our society (forgot to add my name twice now). Our society always looks for someone else to blame. It's the guns or the coffee was too hot etc... When we start giving up our Freedoms because that seems to be the easy solution then I have a major problem. Outlawing guns isn't going to help. We have to make it our most important job to raise our children and also give people a chance at a better life. We need to find a balance between just giving people money and giving them the chance to help themselves. But that is the topic of another discussion.

I think it is dangerous when we assume that the Bill of Rights needs to be changed because the Founding Fathers could't forsee the problems of our current society. Our country is one of the few that has remained stable since it's founding. I wouldn't go mucking around with a successful formula.

Posted by: Silmiril | December 6, 2006 2:02 PM

Ahhhh...Glen has revealed himself. He is a member of MENSA. The organization of very bright people who have such underdeveloped social skills that they have to join organizations of very bright people in order to have anyone to associate with. Which is totall in keeping with making long, rambling, vile posts on a newspaper web site.

Posted by: Jack | December 6, 2006 2:02 PM

Will, I can get my gun out very quickly. Also, if I'm walking into an area where I figure there might be trouble, that's exactly what I would do. Pull the gun from its holster and be ready to use it if nec. And the law in VA says you can do this, you just can't point it at anyone or threaten anyone with it without cause. By mugger I assume you mean robber. If some fool attempts to rob me with anything less than a gun, then they are really going to be in a bad situation. In VA I have a choice of carrying concealed or open. I carry concealed sometimes. I carry openly most times. So far if any muggers or robbers have seen me, they apparently didn't think I looked like the target they wanted. I think it has something to do with that cannon strapped to my leg, but I could be wrong. One thing for sure, if I am confronted by a criminal, I would much rather have a weapon than not. I guess the anti gun people on here are so tough that they just slap armed criminals and send them on their way, but I'm not quite that hard. I guess I'm a pansy too, even though I carry a gun.

Posted by: David | December 6, 2006 2:08 PM

At the risk of returning this discussion to its original subject, the question was not the general right to own guns but what limits society can place on law abiding citizens right to possess a legal product on public property. An analogy to Marc's comments about guns in libraries would be that since using a cigarette in a library is illegal, a person should be arrested if they have a pack in their pocket, or that landlords can prohibit new tenants from having guns in their apartments but should grandfather in those who already own one.

Posted by: Woodbridge Va | December 6, 2006 2:08 PM

I'm not the only one, I'm sure, to notice that the people who want to carry concealed weapons always cite self-defense as the reason. I've lived in the DC area for over fifty years, never been the victim of a crime committed with any weapon, never been close to a crime committed with any weapon, and never felt any particular need to defend myself or to be prepared to defend myself. When I camped in National Parks years ago, I never even saw a bear, and if I were worried about bears now, I'd figure out another place to camp. And I'm sure that most of the people who claim "self-defense" as a reason to carry concealed weapons have no greater need to do so than I do. So, since the need to carry a concealed firearm is questionable, what inadequacy does a concealed firearm cover over?

Posted by: just sayin' | December 6, 2006 2:16 PM

hey jack, kiss my ass. You don't know anything about me moron. I'm a member of Mensa but haven't been to a meeting in forever. Too busy working out, sparring, and shooting. The point is, I can get in, you can't. And my invitation is open to you as well. See, being a smart guy, I'm a real quick learner. So if you're offended by something I've said, or find it to be vile, all you have to do is slap me and I'll shut up. And as to social skills, I obey the laws because I don't want to go to jail or prison. I like freedom. But my own opinion is that men should be able to go to blows and settle things amongst themselves. I believe in violence as a solution to some issues, but I do posses adequate social skills to restrain myself. In other words, the only thing that keeps me from kicking some peoples asses is that there are laws against it and consequences to doing so. Hopefully someday the police will decide that they don't have the resources to prosecute people for fistfights. Until then I will restrain myself. But anytime you want to slap me and shut me up, bring it chump. I like going on the mats myself, that's why I do it over and over for years. It's fun. Besides, what good is all those hours of training if you don't get to occasionally insert your foot in someones posterior region? Especially some one who needs just that.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 2:16 PM

As a card carrying Democrat, I believe Jim Webb is correct. You Republicans are not believing this! Thats right I'm a Democrat.

Carrying a side arm in a national park is not a bad thing. There are 2 and 4 legged animals in those parks that one should protect himself and family from. Why would anyone want to go into the wilds of a national park unarmed? This is not rational.

In fact, there are two legged animals in northern Virginia that one must be protected from and a side arm is a good way to do that. In certain parts of Northern VA I carry a weapon (legally) because, frankly, they are dangerous people there. As an example, along the Route 1 corridor we have wealth in the areas along the river and a substantial number of "illegals" living in apartment complexes very close to this wealth. (I do not want to single out the Route 1 corridor, there are a number of other locations in northern VA that have similar demographics). The illegals have no regard for the Americans that have been living in this area for years. So, if you do not protect yourself who will?

The police will come to your home after a robery and write up a nice report. Police do not prevent crime, they investigate crime. The only person that can prevent crime to oneself is the criminals target. So, if you have a side arm then you can prevent crime to yourself and your family. If you do not then the police will investigate the crime. Hopefully, you and your family will be alive to witness the investigation.

Posted by: Chuck | December 6, 2006 2:18 PM


So where does it end? Are we willing to let the Federal Government listen in on all of our phone conversations and read our email so we can be safe from Terrorists? Do we outlaw cars because some crazy person drives one into a crowd to hurt people (has happened more then once). McVey killed a bunch of people with a Fertilizer bomb and a Ryder truck do we outlaw them (trucks and fertilizer)? Guns always seem to be the easy target because so few of the population have actually handled them or own them. It's easy to say take a right away from someone if it doesn't effect you...

Btw, I am not making fun of your thought process or your line of thinking. Text doesn't always convey tone... I just think that living in a free society has its warts and its benefits. Once you start giving up your freedom or privacy for that matter it becomes much easier to give up others. Before you know it you are left with no freedoms at all.

Posted by: Silmiril | December 6, 2006 2:19 PM

justsayin youre advancing the same argument put forth by Steve earlier. Since I've never been the victim of a crime, how could anyone else be? I assume you read the Wash Post. Catch the story about the guy in Georgetown who had his throat cut and died at the hands of criminals? What about the guy in Takoma Park last month? Got robbed, cooperated fully, and was executed anyway. The guy that was shot in a grocery store robbery in VA last week who by all accounts was just standing there and the scumbag robber shot him and killed him for no apparent reason? Catch any of those articles? To say that the fact that you've never needed a weapon proves the point that no one else should either is rather absurd. Log onto and read the crime report and see if you can pick out the people who could have used a weapon last week. And those are just the reported cases. Many people are the victims of crime in this country every single second of every single day. again, you choose to rely on luck instead of a firearm. That's your choice. But the law says the rest of us have the choice as well. I've never been lucky, so I'm going with Smith and Wesson.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 2:24 PM

Glen, Will you be my new friend? I think you're really cool with your guns and work outs and the way you don't take any attitude from all these web-wooses.

Also, you're MENSA. How cool is that? Isn't it like one in two million people who are good enough?

I'll bet you have lots of really hot girl friends, too. How can I be more like you?

Thanks for any tips you can share

Posted by: Norwood | December 6, 2006 2:28 PM

Thanks, Glen, for taking the fight to the anti-gun-owners who are trying to somehow suck up to Fischer on an anonymous internet comment list. I could learn a lot from your technique. Thanks again!

Posted by: k-romulus | December 6, 2006 2:34 PM


I thnk you have some anger issues. You need to work those out. As you see in my above blog I am pro-gun. However, your personality that is being expressed here concerns me. I am not sure you are stable enough to be carrying a concealed weapon. I hope you seek some professional counseling or your freedom may be taken away from you because of a reckless act on your part.

By the way. You are giving the rest of us a very bad reputation.

Posted by: Chuck | December 6, 2006 2:36 PM

Sirmiril -

I think you have a point, honestly, and I'm not sure what the answer is. The issue is trying to paint things in black and white. I don't think I necessarily advocated banning guns but indicated that the actions of a few people could ruin it for the rest of us and why that is. Which goes to your point regarding the Ryder truck. However, the scenario you have described regarding fertilizer has become a reality to some extent (unfortunately).

Posted by: BlogBunny | December 6, 2006 2:38 PM


Ignore Chuck. So he's pro-gun. Whoop-di-do. Anyone who uses the term "anger issues" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He's giving himself a bad name.

Posted by: Norwood | December 6, 2006 2:45 PM


You, Chris, and others (excluding Glen) have posted your opinions in a friendly, informative, and calm manner. Don't think for one minute that we would place you and Glenzilla into the same mentality category.

Posted by: Maryland | December 6, 2006 2:45 PM

Glen may be the loud obnoxious type, he may be the smart and strong type he portrays himself as, he may be an 80 year old granny. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change the accuracy of what he is saying- that people should have the right to carry the means to defend themselves and not just rely on luck. When you start placing limits on that, you give the few bad people out there the means to exploit others. I've lived on both sides of the tracks and seen and heard things I wish I hadn't. Mature and responsible individuals must be allowed the choice to defend themselves against bad people. I wish violence could be avoided at all costs. War is hell and all that. Unfortunately, there will always be someone willing to subjugate others and a need for people to fight them. You don't know what will get you in the end- cancer, old age, an automobile accident, or a lightning bolt... You can take preventative measures against death as much as possible, and it's ok, but if you carry a gun to do so you are labeled paranoid or worse. If you start labeling and trying to control those who choose to take an extra step to stave off death of themselves or loved ones, you're not doing anything positive. Let those good people who wish to carry, carry wherever they so choose. I for one am all for carrying a spare tire in case I encounter a nail on the road. Again, there are sheep, sheep-dogs, and wolves. I'm a sheep-dog, and when I was in the service got labeled by people-sheep who do not know what that really means in terms of trying to do the right thing no matter what. Why do they call some of us baby-killers and attend pro-abortion rallies? That is fine. It is all just words...sticks and stones and all that. In the end, they are still the sheep. There's nothing wrong with that. I would fight and die to protect your right to be a defenseless and ignorant misguided sheep. We shuold all be so lucky to live without fear, whether truthfully, or under the spoon-fed ignorance that we are safe because we have been lucky so far. I only ask that you not infringe on mine or anyone else's rights to defend ourselves or potentially you someday. I for one would rather go down swinging or shooting, whether I had a snowballs chance or not, than not resist. There was a time and place for Ghandi, and in the end a bad guy still got him. In not being armed we are not magically made martyrs for a good cause like his. The bad guys would simply win that much more. Might as well do anything possible to keep that from happening. ;)

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 3:21 PM

Having been raised around guns all my life I have learned the proper way to safely handle and store a weapon to prevent accidental misfire. It is ironic that I am prohibited by law from teaching my son the same things until he reaches the age of 16 (or is it 18?, I forget).

The main point I would like to make is not related to my first paragraph and is exactly this:

Politicians have NO interest in providing for our safety or regulating our guns. Don't believe me?

Then think about this: Earlier in this post the Constitution was quoted concerning the right to bear arms, blah, blah, blah.

Do you realize what the Constitution does not say?

We have the right to explosives.

Gunpowder is an explosive.

Do you get it now? Let anybody/everybody in the country have all the guns they want. Make gunpowder illegal. No gunpowder, no bullets. Guns can then be used in a multitude of creative ways: Umbrella handles, picture frames, etc.

Ask Martha Stewart and I am sure she can provide a few thousand ways to use guns.

Without bullets for those guns ... I would rather have a softball bat for protection. They are easier to swing and wooden gun stocks break eventually.

If politicians really want to stop people from shooting each other they would make gunpowder illegal. Until they make that a focus of their efforts, in my opinion they are only puffing themselves up in the press and trying to get votes for reelection.

Posted by: GunOwner | December 6, 2006 3:25 PM

C'mon - Glen has just given everyone a huge windup. He's got to be kidding. GOT to be. No one is that much of a stooge. Good one Glen, you got us. Well done.

Posted by: dc | December 6, 2006 3:26 PM

I wonder how many murders are averted every year because the would-be killer did not carry his weapon into a place where handguns were prohibited? Yeah, probably thousands.

Posted by: Rufus | December 6, 2006 3:27 PM

dosent really matter what anyone here thinks of me or about me owning firearms. I can pass the background check and that's all that matters when it comes to purchasing firearms. Also, thanks to everyone who pointed out my "anger issues." I wasn't aware. the fact that I've gone to blows in traffic made me suspicious, but this confirms it for sure. Anything I do with a firearm will be legal, s whether or not it stems from being unstable will be moot. Not sure why anyone cares how much time I spend shooting or working out. I orignally got into martial arts because my parents thought it was a good way to resolve some of my anger management issues. Didn't work. Still angry but can fight a lot better. And in America, I'm allowed to workout with all kinds of weapons and I do. Not just guns, but bo staffs, jo staffs, nunchucks, all of that. I shoot a compound bow and I love to work out with the bo staff. Maryland, you know what a bo staff is don't you loud mouth? Most people who train with staffs spend all of their time developing fancy spinning and twirling moves that look very impressive but are in reality fairly useless. Or they practice head strikes. You can't strike someone in the head with a staff, they will die. Much better to spend that time training with moves that will work in the real world. Like smashing it down through the collar bone. That'll take a man to his knees. Another favorite, and this one no one can get out of the way of, is driving the staff down through the top of the foot and into the concrete below. There'ss a really easy move to avoid that one, but I'm sure Maryland already knows it. If you don't get out of the way of that staff, it will ruin your day for sure. Yes, I spend all of my time training with weapons, shooting, sparring, hunting, etc. If you choose to knit instead because you're just that type, go for it. This is America. You do what amuses you, and I will do what amuses me. And if someone messes w/me, I will be prepared to defend myself. Many of you who have responded to my comments won't be, but instead will have to beg like a little girl to keep the mean man from beating you up. Personally I get an erection when someone confronts me in a threatening manner, but then again, I'm unstable, not wrapped too tight, need help, need therapy. You know what I call therapy? Getting on the mats and going toe to toe with another man. That's therapy. Sparring. Working out with the staffs. Shooting. That's therapy. I'm everywhere in this area, never can tell when you're going to run into an unstable nutjob with a gun. God I love this country!

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 3:33 PM

Where did you people grow up? Chevy Chase, Bethesda, Potomac? I grew up in a bad neigborhood with a bunch of crazies and a lot of crime. Luckily I had the disposition to adapt. Many of you here wouldn't have been able to come out of your houses in that neighborhood based on your comments. Even today, the crowd I hang with we do not look for trouble and we don't ever start trouble. But we're men, we are not going to run from trouble. When trouble finds one or all of us, we make sure that whatever the source of that trouble is gets the message that bringing it to us is the wrong choice. That's the kind of man I am and am proud to be. If I were the type that had to hang my head in front of my woman while a bunch of hardasses stood there disrspecting her and myself, I'd consider myself much less of a man. come on all you know it all geniuses. You're out in the park, no one around anywhere but you and your woman. Three or four miscreants approach and start telling your woman how they'd like to do this that and the other to her. You going to hang your head? going to say, come on honey, let's go? What? Yeah, that's the kind of man a woman wants, one who has to tuck tail, turn and run. and it's not just for the woman. For me. I'm not letting anyone diss me like that. Been through too much to allow that. You want to be a wuss? Great. America. You're allowed to. I'm not going to be a wuss. I'm a hard man, got there through adversity and that's my preference. Your opinions aren't going to change that.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 3:47 PM

Yea, I fell like rent'n me a Rambo movie!

Posted by: Danglin Doo Dads | December 6, 2006 3:54 PM

Is it me, or are the posts by Glen way different from posts by glen?

Posted by: k-romulus | December 6, 2006 3:58 PM

hey gunowner don't go for the softball bat. The way the weight is distributed makes them unwieldy and difficult to maneuver. Sure, the straight on home run shot works, but easy to get out of the way of that. You can buy a bo staff or a jo staff for 20 dollars. Weight is evenly distributed, and leaps and bounds better as to manuevering. A bo staff is a way better choice than a bat. I own about six of them, tapered, straight, various sizes. They're a great weapon short of a gun. They're good for when you want the confrontation to be more of a personal nature. You can talk trash while you're breaking stuff with it. You really can't beat it. Except with a gun.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 4:01 PM

no it's not you k-romulus, Glen is a pyscho with all kinds of different personas. Since he has no criminal record and hasn't been certified as loony, he can pretty much do what he wants as far as collecting and using firearms etc. But no, it's not you, Glen is a raving mad man who owns all kinds of weapons and wants more. Glen has his eyes on a nice assault weapon now that the ban has expired, but the price tag of $1600 is a bit much at Christmas time. Got to buy all of those stocking stuffers. You know, clips, boxes of ammo, some nice hollow points, maybe a bayonet or two. Don't you just love reaching into your stocking and coming out with a box of 220 grain hollow points? Makes you just want to run out and shoot something.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 4:05 PM

Well, one thing I know for sure is that both Glen and glen have a lot of time on their hands.

Posted by: Me | December 6, 2006 4:12 PM

dangling doo dads, don't go for the Rambo movie. Get Last Man Standing with Bruce Willis. two hours of shooting scumbags with the .45 auto. Can't beat it. Or go with a Sam Peckinpaw flick. Either the original Getaway, which has a great scene of destroying a police car with a .12 guage pump, another favorite weapon. Or the Wild Bunch, lots of all around killing in that one. Just a suggestion.

Posted by: Glen | December 6, 2006 4:13 PM

K-romulus, Glen and glen is the same person. Glen posted at 10:42am the he's carrying two guns today and at 11:309am, glen explained why he had two guns today (fer the target shootin).

Posted by: Sleuth | December 6, 2006 4:16 PM

Glen and glen don't have a lot of time on their hands. glen is so good he can do all of this and still get 22 other things done. damn that man is amazing. Now, Glen is another story. I think glen is going to have to go get Glen motivated, because glen is doing all of the work. When I go off the deep end, I'll say it wasn't me, glen, it was Glen who did it. I'm sure I can count on all of you to back me up.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 4:16 PM

My point was not that crime doesn't occur. It does. But the vast majority of us are never victims of armed crimes, and the vast majority of campers are never the victims of bear attacks. I'm going out tonight, and of course there's a chance that I might get mugged, but the odds are very much in my favor that I won't be. Therefore, I feel no particular need to carry a weapon--concealed or other wise.
If you're so scared that you feel that you must carry a concealed weapon, you could stay home instead, thereby avoiding the expense and possible consequences that accompany gun ownership.

Posted by: justsayin | December 6, 2006 5:03 PM

Yeah, MOST of us aren't crime victims, but better to be prepared than be the one guy who gets his throat slit in safe Georgetown . . . .

Posted by: k-romulus | December 6, 2006 5:09 PM

OK, so by his own admission Glen has anger management issues. He has obliquely threatened about 5 different posters with physical violence--even crossing the "digital" line by offering a real-world address for people to come and "try and take his guns".

...and somehow this raving lunatic, obsessively concerned with all the ways in which wielding a gun makes him a "man", is supposed to convince me that we'd all be better off if everybody packed heat!?

Hell, no! When I read frothing-at-the-mouth diatribes about how sexually stimulating violence can be, and that statement is made in the context of advocating conceal-and-carry laws, all it makes me want to do is place a vote in favor of stringent gun control laws! ASAP!

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 5:14 PM

Anonymous (5:15)

So, Glen has made you want to "place a vote in favor of stringent gun control laws?" Where are you going to place that vote, exactly?

Come on, sweetie, you felt that way before you'd ever read any of Glen's posts. It's not like you read them with an open mind and carefully weighed his arguments, like the rest of us have.

You were prejudiced. All Glen did was to make you feel smugly satisfied with yourself.

Posted by: Norwood | December 6, 2006 5:22 PM

again, it doesn't matter how you feel about me owning firearms. That's not up to you, it's up to the state. And for the genius that says I've threatened people you obviously don't know the meaning of the word, even though I defined it earlier. You certainly don't have any concept of what the legal standard of a threat is. I've told a police officer to back the hell up off of me and that if I sensed a threat I was going to defend myself. Gee, I wonder why he didn't arrest me? The fact is, you're allowed to say why don't you try and take them? I've written to Congressmen and Senators and told them to drop by the garage if they want to make me shut up. I've written to them and said if you want my guns, please come and take them peronally. Done that many times over the years, and gee willikers, no one has ever come and said, you threatened such and such. Geez, people can't even discern the meaning of a threat. amazing. you don't vote on gun laws dec6, your representatives do. And justsayin packing doesn't have anything to do with being scared. It has to do with being smart and being prepared. What good is a gun going to do a scared person? Somebody will just take it away from them. I'm not scared in the least. But I'm not dumb either. i would only produce a gun in response to a gun or a large knife. If a person has less than that, I don't care who they are, I'll go toe to toe with them. Most of them are cowards in their hearts anyway. I'm not. I've got big cojones. Some call me crazy. Whatever it is, it works.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 5:30 PM

weilding a gun isn't what makes me a man whiner. Making that statement alerts me to the fact that you're less than that. Plenty of man here with or without a gun. The problem with people is egocentricty. They assume everyone thinks like they do. They assume people in certain situations would do what they would do in that situation. Just now, driving in traffic some fool blew the horn at me and when I offered a few choice words he was completely flaggergasted. The guy couldn't believe that I cursed at him because he blew the horn. The look on his face was utter astonishment. He apparently hasn't learned some of life's lessons. The guy in other car might be just like you. Or he might be some kind of mad man who gets off on physical confrontation. This guy made an assumption about me without knowing anything about me. I can't believe people do it. I don't know if the person in the next car is the biggest wuss on the planet or a stark raving loon with a cache of weapons in the backseat, but I'm safer presuming the latter rather than the former. I know my points of view aren't typical and some are in fact radical. But they all make sense to me and a lot of other people. Not everyone, but a lot. I'm sure there are just as many who disagree. It's like george bush. I can't fathom how any person could support him, but there are tens of millions who think he's great.

Posted by: glen | December 6, 2006 5:48 PM

glen, Glen, or whoever you pretend to be, have you ever heard of the word "slander"? Threats are not only physical. I thought you were a legal whiz. Seems that you are just a fizzle rather than a whiz.

Posted by: JJ | December 6, 2006 8:01 PM

Yeah, I guess if you're going to invite elected officials to meet you in the garage, tell cops to back off, and have choice words for anyone who blows his horn at you, you probably need to carry a concealed weapon. Sooner or later, you're likely to make the wrong person angry and need to defend yourself.

Posted by: justsayin | December 7, 2006 12:45 AM

Hey JJ I don't pretend to be anybody. I get the fact that many on you here are little wussy boys, so you can't fathom the concept that the rest of us aren't. I don't see any evidence that you're capable of grasping the most basic legal premise. Slander and threats are two different things Einstein.

Posted by: Glen | December 7, 2006 8:54 AM

justayin i've already made the wrong people angry plenty of times and vice versa. I've been in at least 50 fistfights in my life. I go through life ready to go to blows anytime it's warranted. I don't want or need the police to come and save me. I don't lose but if I did I wouldn't call the police and cry like a little girl. I'd go home and lick my wounds and train harder. On the other hand, despite the fact that the other person usually starts it, as soon as they get their ass kicked they want to call the police and press charges. Don't quite get that myself, but that's what I call a paper lion. They can roar with the best but they don't want any real drama. Also, I realize that I'm surrounded by legal scholars, but you may have heard of the First Amendment. Ring any bells? I'm allowed to write anything I want to elected representatives as long as I don't threaten them. I close each letter by saying I'm allowed to say all of this because I'm an American. That's followed by the invitation to the gargage. Why don't some of you wussies man up and quit crying like little girls? And I don't need a weapon unless i'm approached by violent armed criminals. If a person in traffic gets mad enough to get out and fight, works for me. Wouldn't be the first time or the last. I'm not pulling a weapon unless they do. Chances are, they don't spend 8 or 10 hours a week training to fight. I do. I think the problem here is that people are incapable of fathoming an attitude of I'm not taking any sh*t off of anyone. The people I grew up with have the same attitude. We don't tolerate disrepect or trash talkers. You are obviously a different kind of person that would prefer to hang your head in the face of disresepct. If you're comfortable with that that's great. But don't think I have to go through life being a wuss because that's what you choose to be. Is this really this complex and difficult to understand? I am different than you. Everybody has a line that better not be crossed. Mine is further out than most peoples'. I don't go through life fearing the "wrong person." They can bring it if they've got the cojones to try. I'm ready for it. Are you? And I probably have to point out that's a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Glen | December 7, 2006 9:06 AM

Marc, you sure can make the nuts jobs surface!

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2006 9:25 AM

"I am different than you."

Yes, you definitely are. You are also full of sh*t. You can stop pretending now, Little Glennie.

Posted by: JJ | December 7, 2006 9:48 AM

It's amazing when one contemplates the fact that you call someone nut job, or pea brain, or loon, or psycho because they don't think like you do. Everyone is supposed to be just like you or there's something wrong with them. Gee, I guess that's why there's racism in this country, because people have little pea brains and anything different is perceived as bad. The bottom line is that those on here who disagree with me for the most part are incapable of objectively considering an alternate point of view. If I were a nut I wouldn't restrain myself. I would stomp people down in traffic every single day. But somehow, that doesn't happen. If calling me a nut or another name helps you deal with the fact that you're a wussy or more like a woman than a man, although you have a penis, that's okay by me. None of it changes who I am. And I personally would much prefer to be a man who will stand up for himself and fight if he has to then a pathetic girly man who's going to cry and beg when faced with physical violence. The fact is that I'm prepared to confront a threat, you're not. If that somehow in your little pea brain makes you superior to me, that's fine. It's America you're allowed to embrace all of the fantasies you want. And for all of you in that category, I suggest checking out today. I read the police report in the print copy last night. Give it a read and see if you still think it's safe to walk the streets and you don't need to be prepared to protect yourself. Where do you draw the line? If a man tells you he's not only going to rob you but rape you, and you're a man, supposedly, are you just going to bend over? Yes, you are because that's all your capable of. I don't like being robbed or raped, so I think I'll be prepared to resist. I guess all you can do is lie back and enjoy it and hope the scumbag spares your pathetic life. Dec 7 did it take you all night to work on it and come up with that erudite post? It's impressive. Did you get help with it, or come up with it all by yourself? Your such a clever girl.

Posted by: Glen | December 7, 2006 9:50 AM

JJ where you located? You want to play pretend girl? I'm in Rockville in Mont Co, got no plans for lunch. Want to meet somewhere? Put up or shut up chump. Name the place and the time and I'll be there. Bring the police if it makes you feel good, I'm not planning on committing a crime. When I meet wussies like you I do everything I can to get them to swing on me so I'm legally entitled to break that nose. No need to be scared little girl, I'm 5'7 and weigh 160 lbs. What's it going to be loud mouth? Shady Grove, Fallsgrove area has dozens of lunch spots. Where do you want to meet? Or are you just a loud mouth coward? We don't have to wait for lunch if you don't want to. I can take a break pretty much anytime I want. You're obviously too dumb to know how to fight, or do much else, and you sissies never show up. What's it going to be loud mouth? You want to talk trash, lets meet so you can do it to my face girl.

Posted by: Glen | December 7, 2006 9:55 AM

oh, and JJ, since you're obviously incapable of grasping any legal concepts, let me be perfectly clear and spell this out for you. First off, if you think I'm talking trash and won't show up, you're invited to put it to the test. I'll be there. Second, I want to be perfectly clear that I recognize the boundaries of the law and respect that. So if we meet and you talk trash to my face, I'll do nothing but talk back. It's not legal to attack someone for trash talking in MD, so I won't. But if you want to take it to the next level and try putting your hands on me, which is what I want you to try to do, I will defend myself, again within the limits of the law. Where you at loud mouth? Little glennie wants to meet you. Not scared are you JJ? Tell the people you're not scared girlie man.

Posted by: Glen | December 7, 2006 9:59 AM

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm assuming you're supposed to be a man. If you are one you're a pitiful excuse. So far you haven't done anything a ten year old girl can't do. Little girls can run their mouths and talk trash. Men who run their mouths but not willing to back it up are the same as a little girl to me for that reason. But not showing up is your best bet. Going to Shady Grove to have my foot removed from your ass might be a little embarassing.

Posted by: Glen | December 7, 2006 10:14 AM

jj can go screw himself and you can stick your blog in your ass. People shouldn't talk trash if they're not prepared to handle the fallout. Anybody tells me that I'm full of sh*t or a pretender I'm going to call thier bluff. Not everybody was raised in a little bubble. I'm a hardass and proud of it. Anyway, you can shove this where the sun don't shine. don't give a damn if you like it or not.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 10:49 AM

Wow ... five posts in a row from the "g" man and nobody has a chance to respond. The first three came in at 9:50, 9:55, and 9:59 respectively. Somebody has issues. Calling somebody a loud mouth four times ??? Why wait until 10:14 for post number four? Running out of names to call people?

Even as a gun owner I am not too sure I could win a debate with the "g" man on my side.

Posted by: GunOwner | December 7, 2006 12:51 PM

Never mind my last post. I figured it out. The "g" man must live at an apartment complex in Silver Spring and he just found out he can't smoke there any more.

Posted by: GunOwner | December 7, 2006 12:53 PM

no genius, i've been reported by JJ the paper lion.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 12:53 PM

you people are amazing with your intellectual prowess. I don't smoke or drink, wouldn't be much point in working out daily and then doing that. Oh, I'm allowed to post again? What joy. I'm sure I won't be on here much longer after telling Fisher to stick it and inviting JJ the girl to meet. No big loss, save the few on here with common sense most of you are morons anyway. Gun Owner you fall into the latter category also.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 12:57 PM

Hopefully there are no criminals perusing this. Won't take them long to figure out that by and large all they're going to encounter out there are wussies who will bend over in a New York minute on command. I did learn something too, so it wasn't a total loss. I wasn't aware that there were so many idiots, wussies, and wannabe toughies out there. Thanks for opening my eyes. Sissies.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 1:02 PM

Same olde names "g" man. We've seen all of those before. Not very original for a Mensa member. Try visiting them again ... or maybe you are not welcome there because they won't let you carry your gun(s)?

At any rate:

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent"

Posted by: GunOwner | December 7, 2006 1:18 PM

sorry gunowner, but if it weren't for those pesky laws, violence would be the first resort. I should be on the cover of a magazine based on your last post. I do pretty well for an incompetent. I think violence is underrated and under-used personally. The law should allow men to kick the asses of other men, especially smarmy types that are in obvious need of a good tune up. And you're still a moron. Did you prefer something new? Buffoon? Nincompoop? george bush? What?

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 1:43 PM

Just don't call me "Glen"

Posted by: GunOwner | December 7, 2006 1:56 PM

glen/Glen/Idiot: For a MENSA member, you sure do use a lot of small, meaningless, rambling words in lieu of a few, well-selected, and well though out words in order to get your point across. I can certainly understand why you are always available for lunch too....

Posted by: Maryland | December 7, 2006 1:57 PM

GunOwner, most of the gun-owners that have chatted on this blog appear to be very responsible and rational. The big "g" is the exception. It's people like him that give others a bad rap. Could you image living next to that idiot?

Posted by: Maryland | December 7, 2006 2:01 PM

HEY GLEN, it's been 20 minutes since your last post. Are you ok? you didn't bust a vessel, did you?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2006 2:04 PM

No, my comments keep being refered to Fisher for approval since I've apparently upset all of the girly men.

Posted by: couldntbeglen | December 7, 2006 2:10 PM

Maryland you're a pathetic cowardly punk. Total wuss who talks trash. Let me see if I can line up a 14 year old girl to kick your ass, need to match you with someone at your skill level.

Posted by: couldntbeglen | December 7, 2006 2:17 PM

WOW!! I just got done reading the world according to G/glen. WOW...

Seriously Glen, what's with all the anger? Why is "kicking ass" the primary solution to miniscule slights like honking a horn? Why do you need to call someone out for a fight because they have an opinion about you or differ from you?

What does your manly-ness prove in the long run, really?

Posted by: OnTheFenceWussy | December 7, 2006 2:21 PM

Thanks for the thoughts Maryland.

We don't really have to worry to much about Glen/glen/Idiot/couldntbeglen. He will stand out in a crowd.

It's the quiet people carrying guns that are a little more scary. Those are the really bad guys, and they will spot the "g" man really quick.

They will walk up and pop him without saying a word, just to get a new gun.

Unless they are paper targets, in which case the "g" man has them under control.

Posted by: GunOwner | December 7, 2006 2:28 PM

onthefence I came up different than most. If someone honks the horn or gives me the finger in traffic I consider that disrepect and a challenge. If someone tries to cut me off in traffic, they're trying to take the piece of road I'm on and I'm not letting anyone take anything from me. Did you happen to notice all of the attacks and name calling directed my way because I don't fit the mold or thilnk like the sheep? I have no problem with people being wussies. But don't be a wuss and act like a killer. People want to back down, run, beg, whatever, that's fine. I don't and I'm not. I'm standing up for myself and I'm standing up to any person who brings it. That's who I am. And would much rather be that person than a wuss. That's my choice.

Posted by: couldntbeglen | December 7, 2006 2:31 PM

gee gunowner, you and your cowardly friend are so smart. Can you explain to me why I've been around all of these years and it hasn't happened yet? and btw, I've been shot, got plenty of battle scars and i'm still standing. Some of you girls should give Kid Rock's Devil Without a Cause a listen. It will clue you into the fact that there are people in this world who are different than you.

Posted by: couldntbe | December 7, 2006 2:33 PM

and while youre at it, check out Grand Master Flash's The Message. That's me to a T. Leave me alone and we're cool. Jack with me and you picked the wrong dog. I guess I'm having trouble understanding why these are all foreign concepts to you people, but I guess I just haven't spent enough time around cowards and wussies.

Posted by: couldntbe | December 7, 2006 2:36 PM

Glen/glen/Idiot/couldntbeglan/pea brain doesn't spend much time in libraries and he listens to crap music. Ah, time does reveal a lot!

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2006 2:49 PM

Marc, thanks for giving Boy Wonder a virtual Prozac!

Posted by: All is Well | December 7, 2006 2:56 PM

Careful "g" man. The paper targets are going to get driver's licenses and cut you off on the way to the range.

Funny how people are really brave at the range but wet their pants with buck fever when the real deal comes down.

Hey "g" man, if you were as good as you are in your own mind you wouldn't have been shot in the first place. Perhaps the hands were a little too busy to pull the correct weapon?

I saw way too many mouths like you in country. Too bad that's all they had to contribute 'cause none of them were worth a crap. Now that I think about it, they all came home in a bag.

Personally, I prefer a long gun over a handgun 'cause people like you wouldn't get within 400 yards of me with my Hawkins.

But you are really good, right? Guess I would have to choose between the Bushmaster or the '06 when you get around 200 yards. The accurate range of your little pop guns is about 75 yards (at best, in the hands of an expert, not a mouth) so you may want to get back in your minivan and leave.

Keep popping off those rounds and make us safe from the evil paper targets of the world.

Posted by: GunOwner | December 7, 2006 3:04 PM

see there's a perfect example from Dec 7th, who is another trash talking coward. You don't like a particular genre of music so you call it crap. Gee your thought processes are so sophisticated. Why would I go to a library? I can find anything they have on the internet from the comfort of my chair. So you don't like rap music so it's trash? I listen to many types of music, I'm not constrained by an infinitesimally small brain like you. Why don't you find a club that's playing rap music this weekend, barge in, and grab the mic from the DJ and yell, you're all listening to trash? Let's see, because you're a coward and you know what they'd do to you? Hilarious how I'm the bad guy but all of my critics here are guilty of everything they're upset with me over. It's okay for you, but not for me. At the end of the day, I've shown I'm a man with cojones and willing to take it to whatever level some moron thinks they want to take it to. Most of you have shown yourselves to be trash talking cowards that will keep talking, but will piss down their pants leg if given an opportunity to walk the walk.

Posted by: couldntbe | December 7, 2006 3:07 PM

gunowner i won't bother explaining to you the circumstances under which I got shot. Let's just say anyone else would have taken a round under the circumstance. a 158 grain hollow point, but I'm still here aren't I? I'm always amazed at telepathy. So you've already inventoried my gun collection with your ESP? If you think a .44 mag is a popgun you obviously don't know much about weapons. Ive got Hawkens too loud mouth. Wow, big deal. I'm not a wussie, so I don't go much for the Bushmaster. Besides, it was the weapon the scumbag snipers used. For long range a .308 is sufficient. But I graduated to the 7 Millimeter Magnum many years ago and went on from there to the .458 Winchester Magnum. Now I just use the .50 Cal if it's for long distance. But I still have them all, so I can change them out and don't have to limit myself. I don't drive a mini van because I'm not a woman like you. I don't get buck fever tardo I started hunting as a child and still do. You talk a good game. How good am I? Better than you I'd wager. I spend a lot more time shooting than you do I'm sure. You should give the police a call and tell them to quit shooting paper targets at the range because it's going to ruin them. I'm sure they'll change their procedures post haste.

Posted by: couldntbe | December 7, 2006 3:17 PM

Guess prozac is overrated, huh?

Posted by: couldntbe | December 7, 2006 3:19 PM

Hey glen-Squirt, did you become a fussy little bully because you are so small and you kept getting picked on? I'm amazed that someone would cut you off while you're on your Big Wheel! Shame on them! Did they make you drop your lollipop?

Posted by: Curious | December 7, 2006 3:42 PM

You people are all idiots. Frankly, I don't like the thought of any of you having access to butter knives, never mind guns. The bigger the gun, the smaller the ... brain.

Posted by: TeddyR | December 7, 2006 3:42 PM

TeddyR, now teenie wiennie glen will have to post a 999 word response to your post. He'll offer to meet you for lunch and show how much of a man that he is.

Posted by: Maryland | December 7, 2006 3:48 PM


You deserve an award for spinning these narrow-minded do-gooders around on their pin-wide levels of tolerance for people who think differently than they do. "We're all in favor of diveristy here, just as long as everyone agrees with us."

Posted by: And the winner is -- Glen | December 7, 2006 4:03 PM

maryland you can talk all of the trash you want here, but you can't do anything to dispel the FACT that's all you're going to do and when it comes down to it you're too scared to meet me. Everyone on here sees what happened. You talked trash. I talked trash. I said let's meet and discuss it face to face and you said, no, I'm a cowardly little girl and I'm too scared. Curious you're close but no cigar. No, what happened is early on I realized that I was smaller than all of the bullies, but at the same time I was raised not to take any sh*t and daddy told me what to do with bullies. Pick something up and crack their heads with it. I'm really glad that you brought the point up, even though you're way off the mark, because It's a great way to differentiate myself from people like maryland and the rest of these wussies. They gave their lunch money to the bullies. Despite the fact that I was the smallest, I stood up to the bullys, most of whom turn out to be cowards in the end. Bruce Lee said a bully is a coward turned inside out. I tend to agree with that. I dont' bully people or start trouble. I just stand up for myself when trouble comes, which makes me somehow an evil crazy person. And Maryland you are so stupid in addition to being a cowardly wuss. I never offered to meet anyone for lunch to show them what a man I am. I offered to meet because I've got a curious mind. I like seeing if people who talk trash through cyberspace have the balls to meet and talk it in person. You can write a book if you want. Bottom line is unchanged. You're a scared little girl and I'm a man.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 4:18 PM

Glen is a piece of diversity we can all do without.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2006 4:18 PM

dec7th, all i can say about you is that you're not particularly bright. Maybe a tad smarter than george bush if that, but probably not. That's why the comment by and the winner is, is over your head. You like to come on here and "debate" with all of the smart people because maybe then you can convince yourself that you're as smart as everyone else. You're not. But you're just about as smart as the president of the United Staes, so I guess you can hang your hat on that.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 4:22 PM

L'il G thinks owning guns makes him a man(what was he before the gun obsession, I wonder?)...AND he's so insecure he felt the need to join MENSA, surely in an attempt to validate his own intelligence.

Holy crap, this dude must have the smallest johnson known to Western science...the only thing that could make this any more entertaining is if it comes out that he drives a monster truck and buys natural "male enhancement" pills off the internet.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2006 4:23 PM

Okay well, it's offical, I'm the winner so I'm out. Ya'll have fun feeding at the trough now. If you call and ask, maybe the police will provide you with an escort on your commute this evening to make sure no meanies get you. Half of you people the robber wouldn't even have to produce a weapon. They could raise their voice and you'd start pissing down your leg and throwing money and credit cards at them. Gee can I be a wussy someday too? You're so sensitive and all. Women who want jellyfish for boyfriends must find you irresistable.

Posted by: Glen | December 7, 2006 4:27 PM

dec 7th I'll tell you just like i told the other person who is interested in the size of my penis. You want to see it just let me know, I'll be glad to pull it out. Probably not enough for you, but good enough for the ladies, and that's all that matters for me. Also, you can note all the theories you want about this shortcoming or that, but bottom line is that you've been invited and you're too scared just like your friends here. So I can be all of the things you say, but I'm still not a scared little girl like you. I'm a man without the gun punk. I wouldn't need it for you, that's for sure. But I do understand why you hide out there in cyberspace. What kind of sense would it make for you to meet me, all of 5'7" and with a tiny johnson and get embarrassed? See, then you'd be saying, Glen is lil, and has a tiny johnson, but you'd be the guy who got his ass kicked by lil tiny wiener. I'd rather be in the shoes of lil boy w/tiny johnson than the guy who got his ass kicked by him. say anything you want. But say something that refutes my contention that you're pathetic and a wussie. You haven't said anything to dispute your being a girlie man.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 4:34 PM

"this dude must have the smallest johnson known to Western science"

Oh my god, that's excellent! I'm laughing sooo hard! Maybe he could volunteer for a nano experiment.

Posted by: Curious | December 7, 2006 4:36 PM

Second place goes to k-romulus.

Sorry, but there's no third place. The rest of you, with your name-calling and penis-size fixation (what's that about?), were all losers.

Posted by: And the winner is -- Glen | December 7, 2006 4:55 PM

I like women myself, but dec 7 and curious are obviously the penis hungry tupes and they're really hoping I've got a huge one and they can get a chance to get some of it too. Curious let's skip the nano experiment. You're invited now too, but not to go mano a mano. You're invited for the experiment that I've come up with myself, being a Mensa smarty and all of that. How about if we measure it by seeing how much of it you can take in your mouth? Of course you'd probably have to spit out the one that's already in there and wash up first, I'm not going for seconds; or fifths as the case may be. Better yet, you and dec7 are obviously no threat to a piss ant, let alone a man, so why don't you two meet and play with each other's penises? You know you want to. What in the hell am I saying, you're probably doing that anwyay. I'll participate in the experiment if you open wide for me. I'm going to have to wear a condom though, I know you hate that, but it's the prudent thing to do when messing with a Maytag. Is that why they call you curious? Because you were curious about what penis tastes like and once you tried it you liked it and so you became a Maytag? Next stop Mass for you and Dec, I can't think of a moniker or handle so I use whatever date it is? Am I invited to the wedding fellas? Which one's going to wear the dress? I bet you boys are going to be so cute exchanging vows and all.

Posted by: glen | December 7, 2006 5:41 PM

"You can write a book if you want."

And that book shall be titled: Nanojohnson: Man Behind the Trigger.

Posted by: Maryland | December 7, 2006 6:26 PM

We are the only Western nation with such liberal (or conservative, depending on how you look at it) gun laws. And we have rates of homicide and suicide by gunthat are off the charts compared to every other Western nation.

Am I the only one who thinks these two facts are connected?

Posted by: Jack | December 6, 2006 08:40 AM

JACK obviously is anothor gun control moron who rants without checking statistics. Japan and the Nordic countries all have very strict gun control laws. And, they all have suicide rates that are higher than America's.

Posted by: Jerry Bourbon | December 7, 2006 6:42 PM

sorry Maryland, I wanted to let you have some of the penis too, but I thought curious and dec might get jealous. I know your resume indicates that you have current and a lot of experience holding penises in your mouth until the swelling goes down. How do you feel about telling the world that you've backed down from a man you presume to have a tiny penis? I'd say I'm just curious, but an insatiable gay man already has that moniker.

Posted by: couldntbe | December 7, 2006 7:20 PM

Guns in DC? Damn good idea. That is why I've had one for many, many years. No one bothers me or my family. We used to take it to the NRA range when it was at Scott Circle - ON THE DC TRANSIT BUS. My mom put it in two paper bags because we did not have a cover for it.

We are otherwise upstanding, well respected deep pocket paying taxpayers.

Try to take it, I dare you. Ha Ha Coppers

John Guay, NE

Posted by: John Guay | December 7, 2006 8:54 PM

Am I the only one offended by glen, Glen, couldntbe, or whatever screen name he chooses to use?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2006 10:14 AM

Dec 8 10:14

No, you are part of the vast majority. But don't bother confusing anybody with facts because the "g" man has declared himself the "winner". Or was that "weiner"? No matter, everybody with active brain cells knows what he is.

Posted by: GunOwner | December 8, 2006 10:36 AM

I'm surprised that Nanoman hasn't provided us with his opinion yet today. He's must have found another chat to educate people on his abilities.

Posted by: Maryland | December 8, 2006 10:56 AM

None of these laws allow for murder, and will certainly never yield that result if these laws are passed. I can carry in National Forests in VA already. Did you know that? Have people been mowed down in National Forests by permit holders?

You are wrong and I will never convince you otherwise because you are narrowminded as well. Maybe if you were attacked by a bear or a criminal while in the Park that would change your mind? Try calling 911 from a National Park and see how long it takes to get help, if you get cell service out there.

Posted by: Charles | December 11, 2006 11:33 AM

It's petulant. With an a. Try not to use words you can't spell, Marc.

Posted by: RL | December 11, 2006 1:01 PM


Now I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to act on your advice: "Try not to use words you can't spell."

I can do that if I have a spelling checquer, but here eye am without won, and I don't no what I should due. I guess the hart of my problem is that I just don't know which words I don't no how to spell and which I do.

In fact even when I spell them all write, it still seams weird sometimes, especially is English. Can ewe please tell me Hough to practice yore good advice?

Posted by: KK | December 11, 2006 5:28 PM

The writer, and our elected officials, need to READ THE LAW before trying to tell people what the law says. Regarding guns in libraries, people who may legally own guns can legally carry them into the library. Case closed! As to the writer's suggestion that "In Virginia, state law already protects your right to shoot up a library should you find yourself incited by, I don't know, a heated exchange of ideas or something.", let's introduce REALITY into the picture. You can NOT shoot the library up because you you're upset, angry, etc. You CAN defend yourself, a family member, or others whose lives are in danger and who do not have an opportunity to retreat. BIG DIFFERENCE here. For the sake of clarity in the discussion, PLEASE have your paid writing staff be professional and tell the TRUTH, or move their writing to the fiction section. At least the Libarary Staff (which, by the way includes my wife) knows the difference between fact and fiction, and they do seperate the two.

Posted by: Neal J | December 11, 2006 8:09 PM

I find it interesting that guns have given us this country, helped slaves escape oppression, protected countless individuals from attack by violent criminals, are around us every day on the belts of police officers and yet we still have these debates (or name calling exchanges) about the right to have, possess, or carry firearms.
If you want to carry a firearm you are labeled as 'paranoid" yet the people calling you "paranoid" are in fact "paranoid" of you. Is this a case of projection of ones fears upon another? You fear those with guns but you are probbly encountering someone in your daily life that has one on his/her person, illegally.
You do not believe that women should have right or means to defend themselves? That certain minorities that historically have been viloently persecuted (gays/lesbians) should have the right and the means to protect themselves? How about this, you do what you want and I will do what I want. Is that not what this country was founded on?

Posted by: C Fry | December 24, 2006 12:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company