Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Molovinsky, Morganelli & TR on Gun Violence

If you talk to the Mayors of any of the Lehigh Valley's three cities, you'll hear that crime is a really just a "perception" problem. Things are fine. Really! But Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli has a different view.

He called a news conference on Monday, in the wake of a weekend of carnage in Northampton County. Easton just had its fifth homicide of the year. And in a South Bethlehem shoot-out, five people were seriously injured and a woman was dead

Morganelli spoke of the "night people," a culture of young "macho" males who use guns to "take care of business." While he stated that Bethlehem and Easton are still safe cities, he adds this caveat: "When it gets past midnight, it's not a good idea to be walking anywhere." At another point, he said, "A lot of these crimes occur after midnight."

Blogger Michael Molovinsky, who has been visiting gun stores in recent weeks to sell his target shooting guns, has noticed they are "now full of very light weight, highly concealable, high caliber pistols, supposedly sold for i>defense." He also notices that our lenient LTC laws "now permit anybody a gun, for any or no reason."

Why is this happening?

Bigots will claim that this is what we should expect from those people, whom they will call "animals."

But Theodore Roosevelt, of all people, is the person who predicted this, on October 14, 1912. He was running for President at the head of the Bull Moose Party, had just finished one speech and was on his way to another. While standing to waive to the crowd, a man armed with a Colt .38 shot the Trust-Buster in the chest.

Instead of listening to his friends and going to the hospital, Roosevelt insisted on delivering his next speech. "[I]t takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," he told the crowd.

Now for the prediction.
"Friends, every good citizen ought to do everything in his or her power to prevent the coming of the day when we shall see in this country two recognized creeds fighting one another, when we shall see the creed of the "Havenots" arraigned against the creed of the "Haves." When that day comes then such incidents as this to-night will be commonplace in our history. When you make poor men - when you permit the conditions to grow such that the poor man as such will be swayed by his sense of injury against the men who try to hold what they improperly have won, when that day comes, the most awful passions will be let loose and it will be an ill day for our country."
Roosevelt was half-right. Violence is becoming all too commonplace. But as Michael Molovinsky told me in a conversation yesterday, the "Havenots" are not just taking on the "Haves." They're attacking each other, too.

110 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, we got all progressive over several generations, couldn't tell anyone what was right and wrong.

Babies having babies, knowing no one would let them fall.

Can't tell kids they are wrong for not going to school or working hard. Instead, tell them "Somebody screwed you, but you deserve better and if you need to take it with a gun, so be it. If you don't get your way, shoot 'em. Immediate gratification at all costs.

Glorify the lifestyle, make excuses for it, it is all someone
else's fault.

I love it when teachers bitch about classroom behavior. They vote for the D who will keep throwing money at them, but are too stupid to realize their hero is the same progtard who removed the last bastion of student and parent accountability. Or, maybe they realize it and simply make the choice that their wallet is more important than the societal damage they cause.

All you handwringing D's, you reap what you sow.

-Clem

Bernie O'Hare said...

TR was a Republican.

Anonymous said...

He was no conservative.

-Clem

Anonymous said...

He was a regulator.

-Clem

Bernie O'Hare said...

He was a conservative when it came to the environment. The original conservationist. And he was a regulator when we needed it.

Anonymous said...

WOW!
Bernie actually setting Clem straight.
What next?

Anonymous said...

And I don't think his warning to the "Haves" was at all akin to what is going on in the culture today. Molivinsky's point is well made.

I would concede that the "Haves" could, and should, be more prudent in their stewardship of the economy, and have said as much many times. But, in the end, no degree of stewardship will assuage the culture of victimization and its apologists.

-Clem

Anonymous said...

How can that be, when he is me and I am he?

At least, so says the Hogmentor...

-Clem

Anonymous said...

More and more law abiding people are carrying small concealed weapons for their protection in this world of people with no morality.

Too bad you don't like it. The people you should fear the most are those who don't have a permit or license, not the hionest gun owner.

As long as some people act like animals, we all have the right toi defend ourselves.

Anonymous said...

No Clem you are not Bernie, you are Angle.

Anonymous said...

Bernie

It appears that an awful lot of conclusions are being reached without a lot of facts. Do we know if any of those involved even had a LTC (since Molovinsky mentions it). Do we even know if the guns were legally purchased?

While Molovinsky might be upset that gun stores aren't stocking muzzle-loaders any more, the fact is that violent crime is down in areas where law-abiding citizens carry more.

Anonymous said...

I'm a little confused on this post. TR's quote can't be compared to the recent shootings. The Shootings at the PR Club seems to be more related to young adults, same socioeconomic demographic.

They were not shooting at rich (Haves) or even people coming or going to the Sands Casino.

Were the Kids from Columbine (Haves or Have-nots?)

Was the kid who shot up all the folks up at the Batman Movie a (Have or Have-not?)

Seems like your insinuating that
TR's prediction of a Haves vs Have-nots shootout is coming to fruition here in the Valley!! This is very telling.... implicit racism at its finest. No correlation what so ever....


Anonymous said...

TR was a Progressive who sought to control every aspect of American life through government. He was an asshole who blamed the actions of humans on inanimate objects and use it as an excuse to disarm pesky "have nots."

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

When the the haves and have nots become stratified Roosevelt's fear of a class based society will be realized. With the best of intentions liberal government programs have managed to create generational poverty. Many fear the new policies of the left will prevent those with new ideas and drive from rising to the top. Then those born into wealth will be wealthy and those born into poverty will be poor. Welcome to the Left's brave new world.

Scott Armstrong

Resident of Allentown said...

Molovinsky's latest blog about fire arms is complete nonsense. While I don't know for sure that those involved did not have LTCs, I'd be willing to bet on it that they did not...heavily.
As far as why someone, such as myself, would want to use a bullet with more stopping power:
In response to problems encountered by American units fighting Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American War, the then-standard .38 Long Colt revolver was found to be unsuitable for the rigors of jungle warfare, particularly in terms of stopping power, as the Moros had very high battle morale and frequently used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain.
These tribesman would get high, focus on taking out a high ranking officer and could not be stopped from completing their assasination even when riddled with the standard .38 bullets. I'd say considering some of the drugs whackos are on today, stopping power is essential.
Although it's been said time and time again it makes it no less a fact: The areas in our country which make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to carry firearms are the areas with the highest crime rates. Armed Criminals know these areas are safe and easy pickens since the citizenry cannot defend themselves.
Last point: if our people and our government were really serious about stopping most of the gun violence they would start by halting the idiotic "War on Drugs" which supplies and propogates 99% of the violence.

Anonymous said...

"With the best of intentions liberal government programs have managed to create generational poverty"

yeah...the poor were soooooooooooo much better in a pre-FDR world, and upward mobility was likewise MUCH more fluid.

Anonymous said...

@ 815.

well stated, on every count.

michael molovinsky said...

@ 8:15, the guns used in bethlehem's gunfight were a 40 and 45 caliber, certainly for personal defense those are unnecessarily large calibers. this is not supposed to be jungle warfare. your comment belongs in a Guns and Ammo magazine, not an intelligent discussion about violence in the lehigh valley. thank you for not submitting it to my blog

Anonymous said...

Bernie

What caliber pistols do the police carry, for their protection?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Molivinsky, when it comes to my personal defense or the defense of my family, let me be the judge on what caliber i need to protect them.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"I'm a little confused on this post. TR's quote can't be compared to the recent shootings. The Shootings at the PR Club seems to be more related to young adults, same socioeconomic demographic. "

No shit. The "Havenots" are a "socioeconomic demgraphic." That was TR's point. 100 years ago, he was talking about the same thing that happened last weekend.


Bernie O'Hare said...

"What caliber pistols do the police carry, for their protection?"

I don't know. I am no firearms expert.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully, the DA will fully vet the firearms possession and use issues with these shooters. (1) Did each one lawfully acquire and possess the firearm he used? (2) How was the firearm transported to the scene and from where? (3) If the firearms were carried concealed, did the persons have a LTCF from their home county in PA or a State with reciprocity with PA? (4) Were any of the shooters acting in self defense? Any violation of the PA uniform firearms act should be fully prosecuted with maximum sentences applied. This is in addition to any other criminal charges related to homicide, assault etc... The PA firearms laws are strict and have severe punishment attached when NON law abiding people transport, possess and use them. Let see the laws on the books fully vetted for this case and prosecuted. IMHO

Anonymous said...

What caliber pistols do the police carry, for their protection?"

Police generally carry the 9mm, although the 40S&W has become popular of late. Some traditionalists also carry the 45 ACP, which was the round design for the 45 1911, the handgun designed to supplant the under-powered 38 alluded to in the earlier post.

and like 924 AM, I prefer to decide for myself what caliber is adequate to protecty my family. I'm partial to the 40S&W.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Last point: if our people and our government were really serious about stopping most of the gun violence they would start by halting the idiotic "War on Drugs" which supplies and propogates 99% of the violence."

It;s much deeper than the drugs and gangs problem. The tiff outside the PR Beneficial Society involved no drugs. It did involved young macho males who had too much to drink and who have no future. Legalizing drugs will not help that problem.

What will help that problem is educational opportunities, jobs. I believe that is what TR was talking about 100 yrs ago. I can see legalizing and regulating a drug like marijuana, bt for the most part, legalizing drugs is nonsense. if anything, more restrictions need to be imposed on the use of alcohol, which probably accounts for as much crime as the other drugs.

Bernie O'Hare said...

9:58, I believe the DA is closely looking at all of those questions.

Bernie O'Hare said...

" With the best of intentions liberal government programs have managed to create generational poverty."

There certainly is some truth to this. On the other hand, we do need a safety net. One that empowers a person.

michael molovinsky said...

dear Guns and Ammo types, like 8:15 and 9:58, while you ponder calibers and LTC regulations: Here's the reality. multiple people participated in a gun fight with multiple guns, death and injury, over a few words. although i support the 2nd amendment, we have an unintended consequence. like many other aspects in our society, dogmatic advocates on both sides of the issue prevent common sense from being applied.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"No Clem you are not Bernie, you are Angle."

I laugh when one anonymous coward accuses another anonymous of being Angle or me. Angle does not use a computer. He does not like them. The "farmerangleathotmail.com" email address was set up by his kids many years ago, but he never looks for email there. You have to call him and tell him one is coming, and then he gets his wife to fire up the PC, and she prints it out for him. He does not like computers. That's just the way it is. Clem is his own person, and I don't know who he is and that is not important. What I do know is that what really bothers you anonymous cowards is the substance of his remarks. You can't handle it and lack the intelligence to counter him, so you attack him and make up stories. Doing so further diminishes you and gives him more credibility.

Anonymous said...

Bernie
Police officers for the most part are carrying .40 caliber Glocks a great gun and caliber.
As to TR, allow me to remind you that he was a conservationist not a conservative. He was the originator of crony capitalism that we have the today. He would thump the likes of John D. Rockefeller under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and then invited John D to the White House or the Republican Convention and for a political donation to his running for office. He also worked with Samuel Gompers on cleaning up the textile industry while he, TR, was a member of the NY assembly. Sam was also invited to the Republican convention. Thus the merging of government, unions and big business. Keep in mind that both parties were now tied to crony capitalism and progressivism.

michael molovinsky said...

bernie, stop insulting your readers, let me do it.

Chris Miller said...

Bernie
Just a tidbit on gun sales for this past Black Friday. According to the FBI NICS, a group that has been in business since 1998, Americans purchased a record 154,873guns on November 30th. This is "nearly 20% over the 129,166 processed on Black Friday 2011." Money that came in this year was in excess of 16 million. It is noted that over 250 million Americans own guns and the "top 10 record gun sales day have occurred since Barak Obama's election in 2008...."

Bernie O'Hare said...

MM, You got it. You're in charge.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Chris, I'm not sure that 250 MM Americans own guns. There are 300 MM Americans, and your statement would mean 5 out of 6 own one. There might be 250 MM or even 300 MM firearms, but one person might own 10 of them and so on. There are numerous collectors like MM or even Ron Angle. I never cared for guns myself. I always preferred a pen. Or more recently, a keyboard.

Chris Miller said...

Mr. Molovinsky
Explain the common sense matters you cite in your comments. You have many people at all levels of government, including the United Nations, an organization that needs to be shut down, who would strip us of our 2nd Amendment rights. Indeed, if we are going to take a large chunk out of our military I would suggest we bring back the town square as well as the local militia. If you wish reasons for that I suggest you look at the laws on guns and disabled people coming from, yes, the UN. Educate yourself with UN Agenda 21

Anonymous said...

Actually Mr. Molivinsky, the probable reality of the situation is that none of the individuals who participated in the S. Bethlehem maylay were legally allowed to possess those weapons in the first place. Not only that, my guess is that those weapons involved will be shown to have been used in crimes before. Tougher gun control laws would have had zero impact on this.

Gun control laws only hurt lawful citizens, not criminals. I point out to the great mecca of gun control laws, the city of Chicago, which is always in the top 10 in murder rate for the nation. Did the tougher laws prevent murderers from getting guns, no..but they do prevent the average citizen to protect themselves where it is obvious the police and the state currently cannot.

You have nothing to fear from "guns and ammo" types like me who choose to carry for protection of ourselves and our families. But we have a lot to fear from individuals such as yourself who believes protection comes from more regulation and control which obviously does not apply to the criminal element

Bernie O'Hare said...

Morganelli himself stated that criminals don't bother to get LTCs. But let's wait and see whether that is so. Tougher gun laws would have an impact.

There is absolutely no reason why gun stores should be able to sell bullets that are designed to rip a person to pieces to just anyone. There is no reason why every person, including those with emotional problems and who make death threats, should be granted a LTC.

I believe sportsmen should be able to get the weapons and ammo they need, but we need to take stronger measures to protect ourselves from the "night people" instead of becoming a nation of gun-totin' cowboys willing to shoot each other at the drop of a hat.

Anonymous said...

Again Bernie, the night people you refer to are usually not law abiding citizens who would be affected by gun control laws.

But to play your game, can you cite a city which imposed strict gun control laws and crime went drastically down ? I pointed out Chicago in my earlier post, i could have been Camden, I could have used Philadelphia also. Here are 3 examples in which gun control legislation did nothing to curb gun violence. Camden's case is even more funny as they adopted stricter gun control when they laid off 20+% of their police force. how is the average person supposed to be kept safe?? they are not hence the high crime rate.

The problem with your ammo restrictions is the slippery slope you go down with it. Who decides what you should have and what is sufficient in defense of your family? Should i leave that decision up to some beaurcrat in washington? Or an individual like Mr. Molivinsky who believes a .45 is too much..just because. Or should the decision of personal defense and personal liberty be left with the individuals, like the founding fathers intended?

jerry seyfried said...

On February 9, 2013 at the Northampton Boro Memorial Hall the Sportsmen and women of Northampton County will hold a banquet at which they "raffle" off 100 guns, bows, and crossbows. All will be given to winners of the "raffle" after appropriate background checks and only after the guns are legally registered. If you want a chance to win a weapon for self defense, hunting, target shooting, etc. at a reasonable cost, attend the banquet. I am proud to say I started the banquet and I believe in the "Right to Carry". Might I add, Bernie has attended this event. He didn't win anything.

michael molovinsky said...

bernie, i'd like to clarify a few things. i do not have a gun collection, i did have a few target guns.

@10:46, i bet that those weapons used will be found to be legal. you are making an assumption that the puerto rican club was jammed with armed criminals. the same law that allows you to legally purchase a firearm, allows everyone else to also; regardless of the lack of maturity or intention. when you were 21, did you carry when you went out to a bar? apparently they do. i fully support the right to have a gun, especially for home protection, however, i believe the current carry laws need to be tweaked.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Jerry, I stole a pocket knife.

Bernie O'Hare said...

11:06, You have good points and I am not suggesting a hatchet approach or a knee-jerk reaction. let's llok at ammo. What do guys like Jerry really need? Let's look at our LTC laws. Should Pa. be a "shall issue" state? Do we really need to give guns to people who make death threats or death wishes? Should we arm people with emotional problems? Who have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality? If we outlaw that, will it help? Will it be pointless? If we slow someone down, will that be enough to make that person think a bit more? Or won't it?

I think it's time to take a close look at these issues, and as dispassionately as possible.

Anonymous said...

That round would technically be called a 40cal.S &W
As S&W innovations led to the development of that caliber.
Many civilian police departments carry a sidearm chambered for that caliber by manufacturers other than Glock. Allentown for example issues sidearms chambered for the excellent 40 caliber Smith & Wesson round produced by Sig Sauer, every bit the weapon the Glock is.
Some Navy seal units use a weapon chambered in that caliber manufactured by Hechler and Koch.
MM is incorrect. The 45 ACP,( AMERICAN COLT PISTOL) and the 40 cal. Smith and Wesson are solid personal defense options, certainly larger than the more consealable 25,32, or 380 and only marginally bulkier than a piece chambered for the 9mm. The 38/357 are standard revolver options.
MMs knowledge of target shooting ( he is decidedly not a collector) leaves him I'll equipped to ruminate on self-defense side arm. MM is always at his best when he sticks to his areas of legitimate expertise.
This armed left winger ( every left winger should be ) has weapons in several of these calibers depending on the need, with a special fondness for the 45 ACP
in a classic 1911 package. There is much to say for the now out of cool factor 9mm. Easy to find ammo anywhere and very capable modern loads.

Anonymous said...

PS The best personal defense pistol/revolver is the one you have on you.
My dear and beloved friend Gay carried a Smith & Wesson, model 642 Special 38+P, ignoring my recommendation to opt for the slightly more versatile and classic model 638.
She will be missed. God speed good friend.

Anonymous said...

PPS. Count me in with MM. If I had to speculate I'd guess the firearms used in the PR Club shoot out will be legally owned.

Anonymous said...

Bernie @ 10:01.
" The tiff outside the club didn't involve drugs."
I'm very surprised at you Bernie, the episode certainly did involve drugs. It involved America's most abused, pernicious and dangerous drug. The drug that's involved in more violence by a wide margin than any other.

Anonymous said...

It's seems very possible ( to engage in idle speculation, always a fools game ) that one of the shooters was defending himself or others, perhaps not effectively or prudently.

Anonymous said...

ALCOHOL = DRUG
SUBSTANCE ABUSE 101.

Anonymous said...

Pray tell Bernie, what "bullet" sold at gun shops rips a person's body to shreds?
Such hand ringing old chap.
Best leave the details in this conversation to others.

Anonymous said...

Bernie

I think much of the problem is that gun control/ammo control schemes just don't work. Many comments here have given real-life examples of that fact. And we know how the schemes work.

When the first "reasonable" measure fails - and it will fail - it will then be quickly on to the next "reasonable" measure. The first failed measure will never be undone. That process will repeat itself many, many times.

We're onto that game, which gradually chips away at our rights, and we aren't going to fall for it.

Anonymous said...

BOH What's with the "sportsmans" rap? The Second Ammendment is not about sportsman dude.

Anonymous said...

Bernie/ 10:01
So you favor the " War on Drugs"?

Anonymous said...

O'Hare why does every discussion come back to your ex-girlfriend. She dumped you man, get over it. Let West Easton deal ewith their own issues. Apparently there is bad blood that goes back decades. People in this little place know the incestuous natir eof topwn hall. Besides the sweet 23 child, probably gangbanger, that was shot had a disorderly conduct charge against her as well.

Was your criminal charges a disorderly conduct? Enough already let it go.

Anonymous said...

"Let's look at our LTC laws. Should Pa. be a "shall issue" state? Do we really need to give guns to people who make death threats or death wishes? Should we arm people with emotional problems? Who have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality? If we outlaw that, will it help? Will it be pointless? If we slow someone down, will that be enough to make that person think a bit more? Or won't it?

I think it's time to take a close look at these issues, and as dispassionately as possible"

Agree. But despite the availability you cite, we're a far less violent society than we were 100 years ago in terms of per capita violent crime.

1 Violence is more random today, i.e. more terrifying. In the old days, you likely knew or were related to your murderer.

2) Violence is concentrated in relatively small geographic areas, i.e. struggling parts of urban areas.

3) Reporting of violence is better/quicker/louder and sells papers and gets website clicks, likely exaggerating what has always been a steady problem.

Disarming won't work and is impractical. Stopping the jobs program that has earned the humorous moniker of "war on drugs," improving families, increasing respect for life, and vigorously enforcing the hundreds of existing gun laws is the more effective, albeit tougher road.

Anonymous said...

The policies of the Democratic Party to lift people up to the middle class, to look out for the interests of the working-class have not always been successful.
FDR and Johnson/ Kennedy lifted millions out of poverty, and this party, imperfectly,attempts to represent regular folks.
The GOP, for the most part, looks out for the interests of the wealthy and Wall St.
GW Bush was up-front about this.
Cultural wars aside ( mostly nonsense ) the GOP has not been interested in Urban Issues, and/or the interests of working people.
Only in right wing fantasy land do Republicans represent working people.
In a GOP world, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. A simple fact of life and history.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Was your criminal charges a disorderly conduct? Enough already let it go."

I have no idea what this Anon, who is likely the Wicked Witch of West Easton herself, is talking about. Had there ever been criminal charges against me, they would be trumpeted daily on several blogs and in comments here. This is just another of the kind of lie that mezzacappa is known to tell, and is why she has been sued for defamation..

Anonymous said...

"....and this party, imperfectly,attempts to represent regular folks."

you couldn't afford to clean toilets at the places Barack and Michelle and their donors and lobbyists and Nancy Pelosi and Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg and Fred Pollack and Bernard Schwartz stay.

Only idiots believe one party or the other represents the regular guy. Both parties represent the interests of the extremely rich. Democrats hide it better - or count on a compliant press and a largely moronic membership. You check this box.

Have anything to say about the topic of guns, now?

Anonymous said...

Yes, arm yourself. The party ( parties) of the rich are not going to protect you or your families interests.
John L Sullivan and Malcom X both understood that .

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Clem---- this morning at 1:56: there it is for the whole world to see. Read it fans, gudge the strength of its intelligence and humor for yourself.

I'm putting my chips down with Bernie, the fucking guy is brilliant!

Anonymous said...

WOW, Bernie wants to regulate ammunition more than it is now.
Who thought that Bernie was a closet gun control type?

Anonymous said...

The GOP loves poor and workin folks.

Bernie O'Hare said...

This has nothing to do with the GOP or the Democrats. One of the 2d Amendment defenders here identified himself as a liberal. What this post is about is gun violence and how best to deal with it. And while I said nothing about "gun control," I think it might be time to control some of the gunners. Should people who make death threats, and who are unstable, have LTCs?

Anonymous said...

" Should we allow people who have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy the ability to carry guns?"

That puts Mr Armstrong in an awkward position.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Actually, it puts people like you - the Blog Mentor - in that category.

Anonymous said...

I did not know that Pa LTC regs let anyone carry a gun for any reason.
Thank you Bernie and MM for filling us in.
Who knew?

Bernie O'Hare said...

pa is a "shall issue" state. Let's discuss the issues instead of looking for a reason to attack me or MM. We all know your agenda, and it has nothing to do with anything but your hate, Blog Mentor.

Anonymous said...

Friendly correction Bernie, left wing......way left of liberal. Think armed Union Movement.

Thanks for allowing me to comment.

Anonymous said...

Clem made this about politics at 1:56.

Anonymous said...

You talked about sceams to control ammo. Gun control by the back door.

Anonymous said...

With the exception of Mr. Molovinsky and O'Hare, the respondents here are just so sick an stupid. All are experts. All think having a gun is a defensive strategy. All believe that any control is a slippery slope.

Quite frankly, I am just disgusted. The idiocy of this region is immense.

Anonymous said...

Guns are as American as apple pie and Chevrolet. They are also protected under the OUR Constitution. They are a right. To people who don't like it, you have two choices: Change the US Constitution through amendment or removal of the 2nd Amendment, or two leave the country for somewhere like Great Britain. That's just the way it is and somethings will never change. This gun debate is tiresome and worn.

Anonymous said...

9:45...there is a clause that is very important:

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.

So, I suspect that the gun lovers do not even know what a subordinate clause means. MODIFY. I laugh at who thinks they are a militia.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

Well said.

I would hope so, because you wrote it BOH.

Anonymous said...

By the way unemployed English major, the subordinate clause is;

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

Anonymous said...

Everybody commenting here, with the exception of BOH and MM are just so sick and stupid. Sick and stupid.
I'm frankly disgusted too. This region disgusted me too.
Thank God for real experts like Michael and Bernie.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I think I made it clear I know next to nothing about guns, excepting 155 mm self-propelled howitzers. Not much use for one of those, even on my estate. MM certainly knows a lot more than I, as do most of the commenters. My focus was not on the guns themselves, but on the gun violence and what can be done to stem it.

Anonymous said...

The best waqy to stem gun violence is to let the bad guys know you can dfend yourself. If you think you are safer in the city toiday then you were 100 years ago, you ar edelusional.

The great Equalizer keeps us safe!

Anonymous said...

You are safer today. Simple historical fact.

Anonymous said...

So BOH, specifically what are you proposing?

Anonymous said...

Before Morgenelli advises people to stay home after midnight consider this.To restrict my freedom of movement due to crime is a loss of freedom.We go all out during wars to defend our countrys way of life.Death may come to anyone and justified simply for wearing the uniform of our enemy.Why is it that we coddle those that commit major capital crimes.Cold blooded murder should be punished by death in defense of our countrys citizens.Am sick and tired of the constant debate over 2nd admenment.Lets enforce existing laws.And it starts with the current govenor.Martin appel and harvey robinson are local examples of death row inmates awaiting their justice.Morganelli can do nothing to change citizens movement but he can have an impact to work for change in his own area of expertise,the criminal justice system in this state.

Bernie O'Hare said...

3:15 AM, Glenn Reibman is having trouble sleeping again.

I think my comments make clear that this issue needs to be studied with an eye towards changing LTC requirements and perhaps imposing a longer cooling off period between a gun purchase and the actual possession. I think the kinds of ammo sold need to be looked at, too.

Anonymous said...

@10:09 your emotional responce may appeal to some but has no basis in fact. None. It's generally good to do a little research before making policy suggestions.
Bernie, your not doing much better. None of your ideas if implement would have made any difference in the Harvy, Apple Or PR Club cases, I think we will see.

Anonymous said...

If the death penalty was a deterent Texas would be the safest place in the country.
It's not.
Harvy and Appel may deserve to die.
Does the GOVERMENT have the right and wisdom to kill?
Does that deter killing?

Bernie O'Hare said...

12:34, I look forward to the education. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

Again Bernie, i asked this before in this thread, but can you identify one city in which stringent gun control legislation has had a dramatic impact in decreasing gun violence? You cant, because gun control does not work in preventing crime.

You touched on what needs to be done directly/indirectly in an earlier comment about the men involved and that was something to the effect that they had no future. That is in essence how you fix crime and gun violence. You need to bring opportunity to those youth via jobs/economic mobility/education. How you do that, i have no idea, i just know you cant do it limiting gun choices or imposing gun regulation.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute right, just like the 1st amendment. The problem with government regulation is, it just does not at a little, but will continue and continue until you do not have that right any more. So you ban X caliber bullet. Down the road, somebody does not like Y caliber bullet and you ban that, then z caliber bullet, and you ban that. Soon you find yourself with a loss of rights. That is why us "guns and ammo" types fight as hard as we do against regulation.





michael molovinsky said...

@4;14, NYC, which has it's own very strict LTC rules, reduced gun violence.

Anonymous said...

The animals in my city are terrible.

Johnny Casino

Bernie O'Hare said...

MM, thanks for answering that question.

Anonymous said...

MM doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
NYC gun laws haven't changed in several generations. Those laws, for better or worse, have not been a factor in the rise then fall of NYC crime in decades.
I'll skip the other factors for now, but gun control was a constant not a variable.
I think someone said it earlier, MM Is at his best when he sticks to those topics where he has legitimate expertise.
He's just making shit up here.

Anonymous said...

MM doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
NYC gun laws haven't changed in several generations. Those laws, for better or worse, have not been a factor in the rise then fall of NYC crime in decades.
I'll skip the other factors for now, but gun control was a constant not a variable.
I think someone said it earlier, MM Is at his best when he sticks to those topics where he has legitimate expertise.
He's just making shit up here.

michael molovinsky said...

@12:20, expertise isn't determined by you or another anon saying who is, or isn't the expert. suffice to say that none of us are experts on this subject. however, in NYC for the last 25 years, they have applied new york state regulations in a very tough manner. essentially, it's almost impossible for anybody who wasn't a former cop to qualify to carry. consequently, retired cops are in big demand. reading guns and ammo in the bathroom doesn't make you wyatt earp.

Anonymous said...

Rest my case, doesn't know what he's talking about regarding NYC crime stats/ NYC/ NY State Gun Laws.

michael molovinsky said...

anon @2:23, the most definitive study was done by Ian Ayres of Yale Law School and John Donahue of Stanford Law. It showed a definite correlation between permissive carry laws and crime, with aggravated assault up almost 10%. The notion that armed citizens will supplement police protection has no basis in fact. there study conclusion: Finally, laws prohibiting gun-carrying are an important tool for police to use to suppress the practice in so-called hot spots for shootings. Police units focused on deterring illegal gun-carrying have been the most consistently effective approach to reducing gun violence. Permissive right-to-carry laws could make it harder for police to use this law to deter gun violence.

Anonymous said...

Bait and switch. The discussion was specifically NYC.

Anonymous said...

MM,
Good to see you doing some homework.

Anonymous said...

NYC Sullivan Act: 1911

1911

Resident of Allentown said...

Resolved QuestionShow me another »
Is there a correlation between gun laws and protection against violent crime?
YES.

20% of U.S. Violent Crime occurs in 4 cities: New York, Chicago, Washington D.C., & Detroit. These cities have near prohibition laws regarding handgun ownership.

1976- Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Effect: Murder has risen 134%while the national murder rate has dropped 2%
.
New York City - Up 15% between 1998 and 1999. The SAME timeframe that new handgun restrictions came into effect.

In 1986, Florida Adopted the Right-To-Carry law, allowing citizens to carry firearms. The results from 1987-1996:

Homicide Rate: DECREASED 36%
Homicide by Firearm: DECREASED 37%
Homicide by Handgun: DECREASED 41%

93% of Police officers believe law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase a firearm for self-defense or sport.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.truepatriot.com/crime_stats_p…
5 years ago Report Abuse Additional Details
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals over 2.4 million times every year -- or 6,575 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used 60 times MORE OFTEN to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. - National Safety Council

Me? Living in Allentown? I don't take the trash to the curb without my firearm.

Resident of Allentown said...

MM@11:10 : "@10:46, i bet that those weapons used will be found to be legal"
I wish I could have made that bet, I would have given a 100 to one odds.
From Morganelli's news conference: One gun stolen and "Neither shooter was authorized to have a firearm."

michael molovinsky said...

@2:59, i haven't heard the news conference, but i did hear before that one gun was purchased legally, and the shooter had borrowed it. yes, it's hard to make a bet, but easy to claim credit, when you comment anonymously

Anonymous said...

If guns are evil, why do you own so many there MM?

Pa. is a "sahll issue" state and it will stay a "shall issue" state. Except for a few liberal urbanista's, the vast majority of Republicans an dDemocrats suypport it.

End of discussion. Move to Detroit. A legal gunless paradise.

Anonymous said...

MM turns out to be a closet liberal gun control type. Whoda thunk it?

Anonymous said...

MM turns out to be a closet liberal gun control type. Whoda thunk it?

Bernie O'Hare said...

No need to repeat yourself, Blog Mentor. This isn't the advertising world.

Resident of Allentown said...

MM 4:31
Just for the record: You cannot legally borrow a pistol, which must be registered to the owner (gun ranges being the exception where the firearm does not leave the prmises). Hence, the "borrowed" gun which was used would be illegal. (Unless, of course, you meant that the gun was modified in some way against federal law, in which case it technically would be "an illegal gun")
Facts and Reasoning...always a bitch. Sorry if they irritate you.

FYI, as far anonymity, some of us must rely on keeping a steady job and our overseers may not like our opinions. When I'm retired or become independantly wealthy, I will be on the streets with a bullhorn with my opinions.

michael molovinsky said...

@10:17, the number of people on these blogs who are not anonymous you can count on one hand. it's obvious to me that many could state their name with no repercussion to their job, if they so chose to.

one gun was improperly borrowed, and one was stolen. neither shooter had a LTC. by my score, but not the law, one gun was illegal. it's sort of like car inspections. if all stickers were dispensed equally, there would be a lot less cars on the road. you can score it for the record as you choose.

Frediano said...

Typical lying politician, fomenting the very violence he was purportedly railing about; by throwing the blanket accusation "unfairly" to describe how amyone who is not poor becomes not poor, this self-serving politico scumbag is inciting the very war he claims to want to avoid. And for those keeping score since 1912, note where the richest xounties in America are; surrounding DC, the very heart of this politico scumbags, dividing the nation against itself in order to bleed it dry. Progressive my sweaty a$$.

Frediano said...

Nixon was a Republican; go read his 1970 Economic Stablization Act.

Reagan was a Republican ... after he was a Democrat. Who grew the federal gov't more than Nixon, Reagan and Bush 43?

Eisenhower and Kennedy were the last centrist US Presidents, so similar because they were both WWII vets. But Eishenhoer gave us Nixon, and JFK gave us LBJ, and we've been circling the drain ever since, nothing but national decline. This nation never recovered from LBJ and Nixon.