I suggest then that you stock up on antacid.

Posted: Sunday, February 07, 2010
Article comment by: Jeff C.

@ Diogenes' Lantern,

"Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. If you'd like a response, take the time and effort to write a rational and coherent post."

It takes sense to understand comments, and I dont really want a response from you.

The less you respond, the less antacid I use.

Thanks for the advice.

Jeff

Posted: Saturday, February 06, 2010
Article comment by: Diogenes' Lantern

@ Spartacus

You're obviously an intelligent person and can write well, yet the logic you present seems false and erroneous. I wasn't assuming anything. I was presenting a conclusion based on facts in evidence. You did twist my words and misinterpret my meanings more than once.

Nor is it true that I assume my experience is the way things are regardless of others experience. I am very cognizant that different people who seem on opposite side of an issue can see the same thing differently. However, you seem to behave in the exact manner of which you accuse me of behaving – assuming your experience is the dominant version.

I'm sorry you consider argument to be a waste of your time. Rational argument has long been considered a fine intellectual exercise of a robust mind. However you are correct in your observation that rarely will two opposing sides draw to the middle in mutual acceptance. It takes an honest act of willing suspension of disbelief in order to achieve that mutuality but from my side I have to admit that is difficult to accomplish when the other side is hurling insults and accusations.

The "glaring example" of my unreasonableness you highlight is a good example. There is a way to discern when a firearm might be needed just as there is a rational means of determining when one is not. Using yard sales and supermarkets for instance, let me ask how often a person needs a weapon in either of those places? In fact, how often is a weapon needed when going about one's daily business? Given the high unlikelihood of the need, it simply seems excessive to run about one's daily tasks openly armed.

However, in contradiction of your assessment that I am unable to consider the other side, I readily admit to the times when being armed is a good measure. For instance, when a jeweler is transporting valuable gems from one place to another, when a merchant is carrying the day's receipts to the bank, or when it is necessary to carry large amounts of cash for the purpose of completing a transaction. These seem to me acceptable times to carry a weapon openly as both a deterrent and for self-defense. But to openly carry at yard sales, grocery shopping and other such mundane diurnal tasks where the odds of being violently accosted are virtually nil makes the practice seem excessive.

Your assessment of how criminals behave seems also somewhat off. Most criminals (note my condition here ... I'm not saying all criminals, just most) are not sufficiently intelligent to reason in the manner you state. You imply criminal activities such as mugging, rape, and other such personal attacks on the street. My experience with this type of criminal is that they are barely smart enough to choose people who appear weak and unable to defend themselves. In the law there is a term for such people -- professional victims -- and the frequency with which these same people are victimized tends to prove this out. It is also precisely these types of victims who would never consider carrying a weapon.

That rationale also carries over into white-collar crimes such as victimizing the elderly. The same seniors who are conned out of large sums of money are also the same ones who this happens to over and over ad nauseam. They never learn and as a result their names and other vital information get sold from one criminal con man to another until that victim is either broke or dead. That may be harsh but it's reality.

The fact of criminal behavior is that only the dumb ones are in prison. The smart criminals are -- for the most part -- getting away with their crimes. The smart ones also tend to be non-violent because they are intelligent enough to reason that if they do get caught their lack of violence will ensure a lighter sentence and possibly even probation.

In summation of this point, the odds of needing a weapon during the conduct of daily business are virtually non-existent.

However, having a weapon at hand at home is a very good practice. The rise in home invasions in this country has shown being armed at home to be a very wise practice. Another wise practice would be to become educated in how to use a weapon in such circumstances.

As for your Hobson's choice between being armed and never needing a weapon vs being unarmed and needing one is not a difficult choice to make IF ... and I repeat IF ... one is willing to consider the undesirable effect openly carrying a weapon has on others, especially in situations where tempers are liable to flare such as town hall meetings.

If you are really concerned about the choice you pose, may I offer a reasonable alternative? Carry your weapon concealed. These days in most states it is easy enough to get a concealed carry permit. That way you could have the safety of being armed but your weapon would not be an impediment or threat to others.

Was those last barbs (about my insecurities and that you just don't spend time my on my blogs.) really necessary? They seem a bit ad hominim to me and not at all conducive to congenial discussion.

Posted: Saturday, February 06, 2010
Article comment by: Benjamin Franklin

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Posted: Saturday, February 06, 2010
Article comment by: The Right Left Fraud is Exposed

DL

Progressive? You will progress to room temperature when the real problems begin in America. The NWO are coming to try and kill us and take away all rights we once had. The gangsters are the International banksters. Watch the movie Fall of the Republic on youtube and learn what you obviously do not know.

Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by: NoPoliticalActivityAllowed!?

1. According to a court ruling the best place for "Political Activity" is in and on political venues.

2. But, since we are a representative form of government, it is our elected officials who will do the talking and voting on bills, etc.

3 When the officials need/require input from the people they will hold public hearings.

4. Also, many official bodies at local levels have added a public comments section to their agendas.

Thanks and Good Luck

Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by: Spartacus

@ Diogenes --

"I asked you to re-read my post and not twist my words, but you didn't."

I don't know why you feel the need to assume so much. I don't know if you even realize you're doing that.

I did reread your post. I just didn't feel the need to respond to you again. Obviously, we're on opposite sides of an issue. That in itself is not an obstacle to objective discussion, but you seem to have it in your mind that your experience is the way things are regardless of my experience.

When that became obvious, I cut my losses. I don't argue for the sake of arguing; it's a waste of my time.

I'll respond to your post because it seems important to you that I understand how you feel. Perhaps this may answer some of your questions. If it doesn't, I really don't know what else to do. I can say this with absolute certainty: the gun debate is exactly like the health care reform debate, the religion debate, and any other debate, for that matter, that has two sides. Rarely these days will two opposing sides draw to the middle in some sort of mutual acceptance.

Why? I don't know. I dare say it's because people are afraid of saying, "You're right; I was wrong."

At the same time, Ed, I fully respect your right to your opinion. I'm just trying to point out that some of the things you state -- which seem completely reasonable to you -- are in fact unreasonable.

The most glaring example of that is this:

"I've also asked people who carry guns at yard sales, supermarkets, etc., why they carry in such benign places..."

In an earlier post you said this: "...don't carry them in public when there is no need."

Both statements imply there is some way to discern when someone might need a firearm for self defense, and when they won't.

If you don't know this by now, Ed, let me be the first to tell you (because you need to know this), criminals gravitate to the places and times that one would least expect them. They depend fully on the element of surprise, and by choosing places and times that people don't expect to be victims of crime, the criminal increases his odds of success.

So, to suggest that a gun owner would be more responsible in carrying a gun only to places where he might need it, becomes, as an argument, circular. If he knows he's going to need it, he's better off not going there at all.

If it were possible to know where we would need guns and where we wouldn't, the job of a law enforcement officer would become easier by a factor of 10.

"Tell me, if you carry your weapon as a regular practice, how many times have you run into a situation where you actually needed it? Never, I'd bet."

This is a first cousin to the statements above insofar as being able to predict trouble before it happens. It implies that I was mistaken in carrying wherever I went, because I never needed to defend myself.

First, were that the case, I would consider myself fortunate. I don't look for trouble. And the last thing I want to do is draw my weapon and fire at a human target in self defense.

But your statement ignores the inevitable other hand, that being I never carried it, but did in fact need it -- a situation which, of course, might only happen once, with my death as a consequence.

Now the point becomes, if I have to choose between carrying all the time and never needing to defend myself, and never carrying but needing to defend myself only once, which should I choose?

Is there any choice other than those two?

Which of those two choices should I make, Ed?

Strictly as an aside, the "Never, I bet" in your statement above is an assumption. (It's mathematically unlikely, but certainly not improbable.) That what I was talking about earlier. You do that alot.

"...I was trained to see all sides of an issue."

I have no response for that, Ed. I've read enough of your work on this web site that I can wholeheartedly disagree. But to go there is to dig an entirely new ground of debate, and frankly, I'm tired of your style. Suffice it to say, that I believe you stand on your experience in legal areas, whatever that may be, to lend credibility to your contributions to this web site. Your words, your expressions, your obvious insecurities and narrow views with regard to 'who has which rights to do what' tell me otherwise.

If you were trained to see all sides of an issue, perhaps you'd care to write a blog article objectively discussing both sides of the gun control issue -- for and against.

You're not comfortable around people who wear guns in public. I get that. I also know it's not my responsibility to make you feel better about it. Nor is it anyone else's burden to quit carrying so you can go back to feeling confident wherever you go.

I won't say, "You're free to do this or that...", because the last time I did, you said you didn't need my permission to do anything. Funny, considering I wasn't extending permission, and you knew I wasn't. (It was just more point-counter point?)

I will say, do whatever you want, Ed. Feel exactly what you want to feel. Say anything that comes to mind. I'm not saying you have my permission because you know that's not what I mean, but merely that I don't care what you feel, say or do.

It's your life. Enjoy it as much as you can.

By the way, I know who you are. I've checked out your blog enough to know it's not my cup of tea. That's not to say I don't read liberal viewpoints; I just don't spend my time on yours. But thanks for the invitation to stop by.

Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by: No name provided

And dl we dont need your permission to carry a gun, the second amendment does that for us. So really, you are the only one that is "civilized", really, you are supposed to be so progressive, I didn't think you guys called names or where so quick to judge, just another hypocrite, do as I say and will get along type.

Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by: No name provided

DL,

"Most people in this area don't have a clue about politics, law and civilized behavior"

Wow you are really arrogant and big headed, I had no idea. I guess if people don't think like you then they must be retarded. Interesting.

Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by: Diogenes' Lantern

@ Spartacus

I asked you to re-read my post and not twist my words, but you didn't. However, to answer your questions more specifically, I get out among people quite often. Prior to retirement I spent 25 years of my life defending and representing people and their interests in the courts of four different states: Nevada, California, Arizona and New Mexico.

I've also asked people who carry guns at yard sales, supermarkets, etc., why they carry in such benign places and what I got in return was arrogance and veiled threats. What I did notice was that in almost every case, when I asked why they carry, one of their hands goes on the hip and the other on their weapon. This is friendly? I think not. That is an arrogant and threatening pose.

I did NOT say that all of Mohave County was ignorant and irresponsible. I DID say that a LOT OF PEOPLE in this county are too ignorant and irresponsible to own or carry a gun.

I wonder if you've been the one to get out and about if you think that most people in this area are good, honest, friendly citizens interested in making this a better place to live.

In my experience, most of the people in this area don't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to politics, law and civilized behavior. Most businesses in this area have the attitude that they are doing me a favor by letting me spend my money in their establishments. Needless to say, that only happens once, which is why after being here ten years I spend most of my money online or down on the river.

Tell me, if you carry your weapon as a regular practice, how many times have you run into a situation where you actually needed it? Never, I'd bet. How many times have you actually come upon a crime in the act or run into an actual criminal acting out? Again, never I'd bet. So why do you still carry? I have to assume you're simply afraid to go out without your weapon.

As for feeling my First Amendment rights being chilled by the presence of firearms in a public forum, I'm not alone in that sentiment. Many of the more civilized folks in these parts feel the same way and most of them don't attend public forums for the same reason I don't. They are generally progressive or liberal and feel threatened by right-wingers with weapons who generally are ready to resort to gunplay far to easily for our taste.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I've argued in civilized forums far too often for that. I can usually play devil's advocate quite well as I was trained to see all sides of an issue. One of the first rules of good argument or debate is to know every objection or argument which can be raised against you.

I appreciate your permission to write what I wish, but fortunately I don't need your permission for that. The First Amendment gives me all the permission I need. The only thing I miss and regret is that, among the cactus and tumbleweed, there are not many who can dance with me all day long. I miss the heady feeling of a good argument, win lose or draw.

I just wish I could find one. As for not answering questions posed to me, I've pretty much answered them all either here in my comments or on my blog here on the Miner. Check it out. Diogenes' Lantern is the name under which I write. I'm not in hiding and I'm pretty open as to who and what I am and where my sentiments lay.

@ Jeff C.

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. If you'd like a response, take the time and effort to write a rational and coherent post.

Thank you all.

Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by: No name provided

DL

Way to "progressively" not answer the questions posed to you. That's is pretty typical of a politician I just watched on c-span the other week.

Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by: m. passaro

Bob Taylor,

I don't give a hoot how many years you have been involved with the judiciary...you sir, are WRONG. I would debate this with you in a heart beat. I have read the case history in regards to this statute, and it does NOT apply to private citizens, and the county property actually belongs to US. Our taxes pay for the facilities, the very venue that officials are trying to "spin words" in order to control, not by actual constitutions or even by Statutes, but by your own rules.

Won't fly here, and I can get a favorable ruling from the STATE ATTY GENERAL, in favor of the private citizens and the right to excercise our first amendment fully on any, COUNTY< CITY< STATE property.....I'd bet my life on it. Please just be humble enough to admit your shortcomings in this area, and redress this greivance , with some dignity while you still have time.You do know what "dignity" is , don't you ?

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: Jim Morrison

I like people who shake other people up and make them feel uncomfortable.

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: REV9

Rev.9: 1: And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

2: And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

3: And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

4: And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

5: And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

6: And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: Jeff C.

Diogenes' Lantern,

"I'm 70 years old and have been running around Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico for fifty of those years."

I feel uncomfortable about you running around and I dont think it is safe. I think we should have laws that ban you from "running around".

"I've traveled the back highways and byways, hiked and camped the deserts and mountains, drank in bars where I found them, and I've never carried a weapon and never needed to."

I think it best for us to ban you from being on highways. Do you know how many are killed on highways every year?

Oh...and stay out of bars. It may not have happened with you but many people drink, drive, and kill.

Not only that....but many die of liver problems because of drinking.

"But guns are prolific here in Kingman and I've noticed that quite a few who carry them openly are those who also carry a chip on their shoulder to match the weapon on their hip."

And how good was it for you to have beers in both your hands?

Would you like for people to ban you from drinking beer?

You must have a chip on your shoulder.

"I've had weapons pointed at me twice by people passing me who thought I was driving too slow."

Well, you are very slow....70 years old and still having a problem with personal liberty is PRETTY darn slow!

I dont know about your driving though, and I certainly would not claim it is good for people to point guns at you for driving slow.

"Back in the day I'd occasionally run across someone out in the wilds carrying a weapon and never gave it a second thought. But these days, I get leery when I see someone walking around with a weapon at yard sales, in grocery stores and other such public places. Too many people have weapons who should not and many carry them. The odds against running into a situation where a weapon would be useful and necessary are very high. So I have to ask: Why do you carry a weapon? What does it do for you? How does it make you feel? Hmmmm?"

I think people are INNOCENT until they actually do something that is evil or wrong.

You seem to have a huge problem with that.

Why not assume everybody that has a car and drinks beer is a killer on the loose?

We know how you feel....scared.

Instead of trying to infringe on the rights of people at garage sales that HAVE NOT pointed guns at you or attempted to do any evil.....why dont you just "stay home" and sweat it out like some whimp afraid of his own shadow?

"I'm not against gun ownership. But I am against irresponsible and frequently childish behavior with a weapon and I see a lot of that in this area. Again going back to Staying Home. I believe a person's First Amendment rights take precedence over a person's Second Amendment rights. My politics are progressive and lean toward more civilized behavior but when I'm confronted by someone at a town hall meeting who is clearly right wing and carrying a weapon, my First Amendment rights are most definitely chilled and violated. I'm sorry but when your right to bear arms infringes on my right to speak openly, yours takes second place."

Until a person actually uses a gun to infringe on your right to speak, you need to learn how to speak and act like you have a spine in your 70 year old back and speak.

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: Diogenes' Lantern

Here is the statute in question. ARS 11-410. Use of county resources or employees to influence elections; prohibition

A. A county shall not use its personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a county may distribute informational reports on a proposed bond election as provided in section 35-454. Nothing in this section precludes a county from reporting on official actions of the county board of supervisors.

B. Employees of a county shall not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.

C. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any employee as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions.

----

It appears the County was in violation of the statute if and when it prohibited political activity on County property. The statute only prohibits the County from using its people to engage in political activity and only prohibits County employees from using the authority of their positions to influence politics.

By my reading of ARS 11-410, there is nothing prohibiting a County employee from political activity on County property when they are off duty and acting as private citizens (i.e., not acting in an official capacity), nor is there anything in the statute prohibiting private citizens from political activity on County property. Note Section C in particular which specifically states that nothing in this statute shall deny the civil and political liberties of any employee.

If the County did in fact prohibit such political activity they are in violation of Section C de minimus.

That said, I think Zanna and Jacobs wearing duct tape over their mouths was a legal, proper and very effective means of protest. However, Zanna's wearing of a gun on his hip, while legal, was not very rational. It gave the weight of potential violence to his protest. There are proper times and places for violence but this was not one of them.

As regards Spartacus' and others comments, I suggest they read my post again and get their facts straight. I qualified all my statements but most takes them as absolute statements, which they are not.

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: d!girl

@ spartacus --

Would love to go shooting with you sometime. (Then dinner at my place :)

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: Icarus

Unrelated to the article I just want to say this is the most awesome list of names yet!

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: SaveOurRepublic

Spartacus,

Touche'!

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: Spartacus

@ Diogenes' Lantern --

"Are all you well-armed citizens trying to tell me you don't feel safe in public without a gun on your hip or concealed on your person?"

Typically, you assume, as you do with other statements, such as people who carry have a chip on their shoulder, and this county is too ignorant and irresponsible to carry firearms.

It makes me wonder how much you get out and actually rub shoulders with the public in general. My experience is that for the most part, people in this area, whether they carry or not, are good, honest, decent citizens. They are quite friendly, whether or not they share my political views, and very interested in making this a better place to live.

And making this a better place to live is, in my mind, what carrying is all about.

I can't speak for everybody else, only for myself and the few people I know personally who carry. In our case, it's not a matter of feeling safe. It's a simple matter of stacking the deck against those who commit violent crimes. Regardless of claims made by organizations such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the fact remains that the more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the more risky it becomes to be a criminal. In the same way hidden cameras reduce shoplifting in stores, hidden guns reduce crime.

Reliable, verifiable, researchable statistics bear this out, and attempts to claim otherwise ignore the facts.

Is there an element of danger in carrying openly or concealed in public? Yes. The more salient question, though, is, 'Are we willing to give up our homes and streets to criminals because of that danger?' My response is 'absolutely not.'

Like you, Diogenes, I've been around the block a few times. And while I know violent crime occurs in practically every city in America, I don't live in a state of fear. I've never been attacked, and I don't carry because I think that might change. I carry for one reason, and one reason alone: it makes life more difficult for criminals.

Evidently, you haven't spent much time researching the impact open- and concealed-carry has on violent crime. Instead of just writing about the way this seems to be, why don't you find out how things actually are?

John Lott's 'More Guns; Less Crime' would be a place to start. After that, you would be better positioned to critique this subject. It may also help with your feelings of insecurity when you're around people who carry.

I'm sure you realize that in an ideal world, there would be no need to carry firearms in public. Likewise, there would be no point in police departments, lawyers and courts.

That said, I'm certain you know it's not an ideal world.

As a footnote, I have to say that if you feel your First Amendment rights are chilled, or you feel threatened personally in any other way by the presence of conservatives with firearms in public, you're either choosing to ignore actual statistics, or there's something deeper at work in your mind; something that doesn't really involve people who carry, but rather people who disagree with you.

Either way, that's your problem, not the armed citizens'.

After all is said and done, Diogenes, feel free to write whatever you wish. But when you label the residents of the area ignorant and irresponsible, you ignore the fact that amongst the cactus and tumbleweeds live people who could dance with you all day long intellectually and never get dizzy. If you don't recognize that, you're in over your head before you post your first word, let alone the entire comment.

Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by: Chuck Norris

Diogenes' Lantern

You are either an idiot, or don't deserve to be an American. Just wait until someone you love is raped, molested, beaten etc.. and they walk. You will want someone to administer justice when the person that should is you! The police are after the fact. The courts are corrupt. The first line of defense is YOU! Wake up! Look in the mirror. The Revolution is underway. What side will you be on? A slave.