K says:

So... on what legal basis would you disagree?
Can you cite some decisions that would negate this position?
Also, while you're at it, please explain to me how it is in the best interests of the citizens to have the government restrict (or, in the case of Chicago, outright deny) the practice of a specific right? Again, some specifics would be nice. Cite and credit - I care not for your opinion... I'm looking for facts.
I'll wait here for you to get back with those.
I've packed a lunch.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 8:44AM

LC Scotty says:

K,

I hope you packed dinner and breakfast too. Waiting for anti-gun bigots to resort to nasty things like facts could take awhile.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 9:08AM

John Hardin says:

So was there any point to this article beyond calling Alan Gottlieb names?

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 9:12AM

boston says:

Rick,

Have you read the brief? You will see that it is a bold attempt to reinstate the long-dead "privledges and immunities" clause of fourteenth amendment.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 9:40AM

Steve in Arizona says:

When the political leftists have no argument and they know that they're going to lose, they resort to name-calling. Calling someone a "gun nut" is meaningless, unless you specify WHY someone who owns a gun, or supports the 2nd Amendment is crazy, or a "nut". Another stunt leftists "reporters" resort to is to label someone with whom they disagree as, "controversial", or (refering to radio personalities) as a "shock jock". Of course, "extremist" is what leftist politicians use as labels against non-leftists.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 9:54AM

John Hardin says:

Boston:

The "privileges and immunities" clause was never repealed by amendment, so it is not "long dead". Ignored by the government and reviled by statists, perhaps, but not dead.

Do you truly believe there should be no fetters on the Government's power to dictate every aspect of your life?

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 10:41AM

GunHaterEsq says:

Boys, please click on the provided links - I did. The details are in the story they did and in the brief that was filed. It's all right there. I don't see anyone arguing against SAF, in fact the story says they'll win.

As for gun nut - that's what the guy calls himself. As the story says, his email is akagunnut@aol.com.

Resume ranting.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 10:48AM

John Hardin says:

...ugh. I had forgotten that Alan calls himself a "gun nut", and the "self-styled" part didn't register the first time.

I withdraw the question about name-calling - this is actually a completely neutral article, bravo!

The use of what is normally a pejorative term in the article's title unfortunately suggests the author has a bias. Rick, I don't suppose you can edit the article title to put quotation marks around "Gun Nuts" ?

But my response to Boston is not withdrawn.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 10:56AM

Carl from Chicago says:

Rick's use of the term "gun nuts" is supposed to have what effect, precisely?

Does he imply that gun owners are "nuts" and thus mentally unstable or incompetent?

Is it ad hominem leveled for the purpose of somehow undermining our views, or our legal argumentation?

Rick ... what gives with the "gun nuts?" If you must ... go ahead. Continue dismissing the arguments of your so-called "gun nuts." See where that gets you.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 1:41PM

A. Dawson says:

Rick -

You are extremely narrow minded. If you understood what the reversal of the "slaughterhouse cases" meant you wouldn't be poopoo'ing this case or Alan Gottlieb. This case isn't just about the Second Amendment. It's about reversing and opinion that is almost as abyssmal as the Dred Scott case and almost as old.

If you bothered to do a little bit of legal scholarship you would know that the "slaughterhouse cases" effectively took out all the teeth of the P&I clause in the 14th Amendment. The reversal of this 1870's SCOTUS case would be a huge boon for *all* civil liberties. It's revolutionary, really.

Instead, what you offer us is a personal attack on Alan Gottlieb. Frankly, I don't give a snot whether or not he evaded taxes, cheated his membership, or had a gangbang with Senator Larry Craig in a bathroom stall.

Furthermore, anyone reading your article on Alan would get the distinct sense that you resent the fact that Alan earns a living and turns a profit from running his foundations. What's so wrong about that? Alan makes a little money in exchange for standing up for our rights.

The bottom line is that your expose on Alan is really narrow minded. Without a doubt, its penny wise and pound foolish.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 2:34PM

Nicki Fellenzer says:

And by the way -

1 - The photo is Oleg Volk's, and I'm sure he won't be happy about it being used in conjunction with anti-gun bigotry.

2 - The little girl is the daughter of a friend of mine, who also won't appreciate her image being used on this idiotic post.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 2:35PM

A. Dawson says:

Nicki... that's an excellent point. This is copyright infringement on the part of the Seattle Weekly. Oleg Volk could take the Weekly to task if he chose to.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 2:46PM

Michael Z. Williamson says:

Nice. Use Oleg Volk's copyrighted photo of my daughter, and use my daughter as a target for the expected anti-gun venom. Very manly.

Fortunately, as an honor student, wrestler, kung fu practitioner, guitarist, pianist, model, actress and well-spoken young lady, she's man enough to take it.

;-)

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 2:48PM

Jaktens Tid says:

Personally, I think being a "gun nut" is a good thing - I'm sure the average advocate of the 1st Amendment wouldn't mind being called a "free speech/free expression nut".

Also, Oleg Volk wasn't credited (photo is his), so either give Mr. Volk his due or take it down.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 2:59PM

Harry Paget Flashman says:

Leave the picture up. The kid has good finger discipline and is a poster child for gun safety.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 3:11PM

Mike K says:

How classy. You drag a child I'm sure you'll claim you intended this article to "protect" into your mudslinging. The Constitution is _the_ supreme law of the land and should be respected as such. I don't personally think the practice of organized religion is a net positive for society, but I support other peoples right to do so. You don't need to own a weapon to protect yourself if you don't want to, but you should not foment weakening the ability of other law abiding citizens to protect themselves based on your choice.

And as someone who has had the pleasure of meeting the young lady in the picture I can tell you that not only is she smarter, more responsible and more respectful than yourself I trust her with a gun more than I do you.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 3:15PM

Ontos says:

Meh, the use of "gun nut" doesn't bother me. It used to be a friendly term used amongst ourselves anyway, before the left absconded with it.
It's weaksauce, but better than rightwing meanie poopypants I guess.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 3:44PM

J C says:

I'm glad to see that so many people noted the source of the photo; another news outlet used that photo today as well, and I was the only one to note the source.

SW might be able to claim fair use despite Mr. Volk's wishes, but then again, they probably should have provided attribution in the form of mention of his name and a link to his website.

Here's a link to the image. Browse around the gallery a bit.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/ar15-m16/pink6005.jpg.html

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 4:28PM

RC's son says:

"Gun nut"? You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'll wear the pejorative with a certain amount of pride, since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, George Mason and many other illustrious intellectuals would fall into the same category.

As to the Seattle Weekly, I've seen it on the street, perused an issue or two, but it never impressed me.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 7:11PM

SotarrTheWizard says:

And, by the way, us "gun nuts" support REAL gun control.

As in, hit only what you aim at.

What Politicians call "Gun Control" is more correctly labeled "Citizen Control". After all, we can't have independent citizens making their own decisions on their personal defense for themselves now. Pretty soon thereafter, they might begin thinking for themselves, and then what WOULD all the interfering busybodies DO with their lives ???

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 7:43PM

Bob says:

Your bias showed in the title/headline and got worse.

Please gain some knowledge on premption before attempting this again. Some history of Old English law and Blacks Law would also help if you are determined to attack folks who chose to exercise Constitutional rights.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 9:06PM

3legdog says:

Bigoted much?

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 10:24PM

Andrew Kirch says:

Hey Rick I know that girl, and I know that you used that picture without permission, but this is not my point, my point is this:

I trust her with my firearms more than I trust you.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 10:43PM

Dave Smith says:

Does Mr. Volk know you're using his picture? Did you get permission?

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 10:49PM

Oleg Volk says:

Seattle News used my photo without permission. They did not return my phone call. My attorney is on this matter already.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 17 2009 @ 11:05PM

Leon Jester says:

Mr. Anderson:

Here's what your editor should have had the composing room set:

"Boo, hoo, hoo, the Supreme Court is actually going to uphold the law of the land."

I hope you lot have paid Mr. Volk for the use of his photo -- incidentally, of the daughter of a friend. On second thought, I hope you haven't paid him.

What happened to dilute the spirit of the settlers of Oregon Territory?

Leon W. Jester, Jr., RT-R
Roanoke, Virginia

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 3:42AM

Crotalus says:

Anderson, you are one piss-poor excuse for a human being! How dare you use that girl's picture in your mudslinging smear campaign! She is obviously well disciplined in handling a gun safely, but by including her in your evil slander piece , you make her out to be the "gun nut" you so despise. That's just plain evil.

Oleg has already got lawyers on the case of misappropriation of the picture, and I hope he drives you out of business!

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 8:08AM

Orygunner says:

Other than the "gun nut" moniker, the article doesn't seem to be anti gun, but just that reference is enough to tip it over onto the "anti-gun" category.

You'd best respond to Mr. Volk for using his work without permission. Not only does it bring your journalistic integrity into question, but it's gonna cost you financially.
...Orygunner...

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 8:21AM

Rick A says:

Indeed, it's Oleg Volk's photo, glad to attribute as he asks in a phone call (he was satisfied with that and did not ask for a photo credit line under the pic). I like the photo in great deal because it sparks lively discussion, despite the name calling (again, gun nut is what Gottlieb calls himself). You can see Oleg's other work at http://olegvolk.net and http://olegvolk.livejournal.com.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 9:15AM

Henry Bowman says:

It's exhilarating when your opponents abandon all pretense of logical argument and resort to calling you names like "gun nut". It means you're winning.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 9:15AM

45's are Best says:

After see comments such as this come from the "Anti-Gun-Nuts' in the Greater Seattle Area, I have never been so glad we moved to Arizona after living in Bellevue in the late 60's.
Here, FREEDOM seems to still be something most people cherish. We do have some Left Wing Anti Gun Nuts here too, but so far we have been able to keep our Second Ammendment Rights in tact.
Thankyou for reaffirming our decision to leave the Pacific Nortwest and come to the Desert Southwest where we still respect the Bill Of Rights.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 10:22AM

Carl Bussjaeger says:

Rick A: "Indeed, it's Oleg Volk's photo, glad to attribute as he asks in a phone call."

But not glad enough to actually attribute, except in in a comment down below a couple dozen other comments. And apparently not glad enough to get permission FIRST, nor even... dare I say it? ...PAY him?

I lost so much income to piracy that I had to give up writing professionally. If you don't compensate creators, why should they continue to create?

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 10:25AM

Joe Internet says:

That girl at the top is cute. Get them started young so when the liberal oppressors finally need to be liquidated we will have a lot of good shots.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 10:33AM

Ken says:

Misster Anderson:

Repeat after me: "Was that grande or vente you wanted?"

Your next job, if you're lucky.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 11:25AM

MyOwnDrummer says:

The only thing more stupid and threatening than these gun nuts who write in is the fact that all of them are armed. Fortunately, they're a foul-mouth minority; the U.S. is going to get its assault gun ban as the majority want, along with other laws to keep these creeps in check!

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 11:41AM

Cold Servings says:

What the photo needs is a caption, something along the line of "(c) Oleg Volk, used with permission"

But that would require that you actually get permission. And day late and a dollar short acknowledgments down in the comments, while still leaving the photo unattributed in the article, do not cut it.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 12:14PM

Master Higgins says:

@MyOwnDrummer

You're right man. We need to keep the guys who freely admit to being law abiding gun owners away from those scary "assault weapons"...

I'd much prefer only the low-life criminals be the only ones who have guns. We'd have much less gun violence that way.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 12:31PM

Orygunner says:

MyOwnDrummer-

Foul Mouthed? I re-read all the comments chastising the article and its author, and the closest thing I found to foul language was the phrase "piss poor excuse for a human" referring to the author of the article.

Unless you you mean those cuss words like "rights" and "freedom" and "respect"?

Your senseless, useless, ineffective attempts to support any further gun control aren't going to pass, not soon, not ever. Notice all the gun control laws being ROLLED BACK at the federal and state levels? more states allowing concealed carry, gun bans dropping left and right.

More Supreme Court challenges to UNCONSTITUTIONAL restrictions against our inalienable right to keep and bear arms will prove the folly of gun control and restore our rights back to how the framers of the US Constitution intended.

MyOwnDrummer, Thanks for playing, your consolation prize is knowing that unless you live in one of the few states that doesn't allow concealed carry, roughly 1 in 35 people around you in a public place has a concealed carry permit and is LEGALLY ARMED.

And it's only gonna get better :)

...Orygunner...

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 12:32PM

s2la says:

@MyOwnDrummer:

Want to ban assault guns. Bring it on. So far the second amendment says *nothing* about what kind of guns.

But you know what? An "assault gun" ban is not what you think it is. That evil black rifle the cute girl is holding? That's a rifle. Not an assault gun.

First: It's not fully automatic. Second: It's not a machine gun. Third: It's not silenced. Fourth: There is not such thing as an "assault gun" except in the minds of people who want to control others by depriving of their rights.

Sure, it's got a large magazine. Part of the *skill* of target shooting is learning to control recoil, and it's nice to not have to reload so often.

Gun owners are neither foul-mouthed nor a minority. I know people of *all* professions (including "elite" college professors) that own guns. And by the way? Those politicians and celebrities that campaign against guns? They sure don't flinch at hiring bodyguards that *do* carry guns!

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 12:44PM

Leon Jester says:

It's 16:57 E.S.T. as I write this.

I have not seen a credit line appear under Mr. Williamson's daughter's photo.

For MyOwnDrummer: I own an assault rifle. A real one, made by a U.S. manufacturer. In 1917. It was used in two world wars.

Note that this reply and your original comment were written in English.

Note also that Adolf Hitler was an avid proponent of gun control.

Think about it.

Leon W. Jester, Jr., RT-R
Roanoke, VA

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 2:03PM

Cold Servings says:

Oh, and as for the majority wanting to reinstate the scary-looking gun ban, not according to recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls: only 39% of Americans favor stricter gun control.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 2:07PM

A. Dawson says:

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to restrict the gov't from restricting firearm ownership. It doesn't say which kinds of firearms.

In short, the 2nd Amendment is about preserving the People's right to form an insurrection. It has absolutely nothing to do with sporting purposes. This is where the Heller majority opinion fell short. The Heller opinion has some pretty big loopholes.

I am fellow "gun nut"... I absolutely believe in the 2nd Amendment's orginal intent. However, I am dismayed that the commentor's in this thread fail to see that this court case is about more than the 2nd Amendment.

It's about ALL our privileges and immunities (enumerated or unenumerated).

It's time for Slaughterhouse, Presser, and Cruikshank to die.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 2:19PM

Orygunner says:

AND Before someone only shows their ignorance by saying "SEE! GUN NUTS are THREATENING TO KILL PEOPLE!"

Google Slaughterhouse, Presser, and Cruikshank before you embarass yourself ;)

...Giving ignorant people a fighting chance...
...Orygunner...

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 2:25PM

MyOwnDrummer says:

These guy would rather take a life than get a life. Gun nuts for real. Thin-skinned to boot.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 2:41PM

RonC says:

@s2la:

Actually, if you look closely, the gun does have a supressor on it.
Considered a common courtesy in many places and required in some countries.

Aside from that, it's just a common (although colorful) semi-automatic rifle.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 2:54PM

Mike K says:

For the anti-freedom Nannystatists, if you ever read and understood the Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, you would know that it is a document to restrain the government and allow the citizens to act freely and not the other way around.

Mr. Anderson,

The Freedom of the press you enjoy as part of the Constitution in no way allows you to make free with the labors of others. Slavery was outlawed as a part of the Constitution you apparently know nothing about. Theft is theft, apparently your desire to disarm honest citizens is part and parcel of the attitude that allows you to make use of the property of others with a cavalier attitude that would get you fired at any journalistic entity that even payed lip service to integrity. Below is a link to something that I'm sure you'll be seeing for the first time.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 3:07PM

Ned says:

Nicki wrote:

"The photo is Oleg Volk's, and I'm sure he won't be happy about it being used in conjunction with anti-gun bigotry."

Just tale a look at Seattle Weekly's "news" page and you'll understand.

The whole website is a statist-lovers dream.

News? I don't think so.

Little wonder so few people trust the media these days.

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 8:12PM

Eeyore3061 says:

Just an FYI for those that don't know her, she was ~8 at the time that photo was taken. She's a young teenager now and the last I heard, she was eyeing Dad's new .50 caliber bolt action rifle.

Now personally, I always liked the "Milk and Cookies first ... then we take over the World!" photo. http://olegvolk.net/gallery/friendsandstrangers/madmike/morrigan_michaela0677.jpg.html (image copyright Oleg Volk per note on image). Purple with Pink Hearts is just so cute. ;)

Posted On: Wednesday, Nov. 18 2009 @ 11:23PM

Bellevue says:

Whoa. I can appreciate that Gottlieb calls himself a gun nut - I know him, like him, and think your story about him was right on - but he should be cringing over the comments from his fellow nuts. They give deranged a bad name.

Most gun owners I know are average, likable sorts. The angry-and-armed chowderheads in your comment thread aren't typical. The problem is that Alan won't denounce this nonsense because he wants their paranoia-compelled donations. Unfortunately RA, you've become his new boogieman. Least he could do is send you a free membership.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 2:06AM

Andrew Kirch says:

@Bellevue
If Gottlieb doesn't support condemnation of the abuse of a photo of a child in the strongest terms he can find I don't want to be associated with him. If he will not support the actions of a father in protecting his child then I don't want to be associated with him, and if you intend to paint those of us who strongly object to the reprehensible exploitation of a child by The Seattle Weekly then I don't want to be associated with you, so speaking as someone who has supported second amendment rights for years, go to bed would you please?

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 2:56AM

Carl Bussjaeger says:

It's two days since Anderson was called on the unattributed/unauthorized use of the photo accompanying this "article" and Anderson STILL hasn't attributed it in the article (one admission deep in the reader comments doesn't count).

Are you SURE you got Volk's permission?

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 5:10AM

A. Dawson says:

People... the issue at debate isn't whether or not he 2nd Amendment protects an individual right... its whether or not the Slaughterhouse cases get reversed. This case (McDonald v. Chicago) is more about the 14th Amendment than it is about the 2nd.

Everyone here should be supporting this. Regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of the 2nd Amendment.

Don't be as narrow minded as Rick is. Understand the broad implications of what this is about...

... restoring the privileges and immunities clause in the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 8:03AM

Mike K says:

Bellvue,

Exactly which part of our justifiable disgust with the key rattler who stole someone elses property for their own material gain makes people "chowderheads"?

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 8:04AM

Bazooka Joe says:

Andrew and Carl, if anyone has "abused" the child in the photo, it's the dad who allowed it to be taken; and go back and read where the photographer approved its use: "glad to attribute as he asks in a phone call (he was satisfied with that and did not ask for a photo credit line under the pic)." But drone on. You're bringing traffic to the paper you hate.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 8:24AM

Carl Bussjaeger says:

BJ: "Andrew and Carl, if anyone has "abused" the child in the photo, it's the dad who allowed it to be taken"

That's a serious allegation. On what do you base it; the fact that girl has clearly been taught how to safely handle a tool? You'd prefer that children NOT be taught about safety?

BJ: "and go back and read where the photographer approved its use"

Given that the last we heard from Volk was that the Seattle Weekly wasn't returning his calls, I'm not inclined to give Anderson (who did improperly use the photo in the first place) benefit of the doubt. Mainly because...

BJ: RA:"...did not ask for a photo credit line under the pic)."

Since Volk is a professional photographer, and makes a living selling his images, I'd be very surprised if he didn't want attribution. Until I hear otherwise from Volk, I don't believe that.

BJ: "But drone on. You're bringing traffic to the paper you hate."

I hate the Seattle Weekly? I'll be darned; I didn't realize that. Usually I'm pretty clear on what I hate (murderers, rapists, muggers, that sort of thing), but this one slipped right past me. Thanks for letting me know!

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 8:49AM

Oleg Volk says:

I requested the attribution. All I got was a note buried among other comments. That's OK, this discussion contains sufficient effective attribution in the form of the reader comments and establishes a precedent for the future. My attorney is still looking over the situation.

What saved the author was that his writing is so muddled that I couldn't figure out which side he was supporting, if any.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 9:29AM

A. Dawson says:

Oleg,

I would say the intent of Rick's article is to hurt Alan Gottlieb's reputation among the 2nd Amendment crowd.

The anti-gunners already don't support him so the only potential audience this would have any effect on is the prog-gun crowd. For some reason, Rick is against people "fatting their wallets" and obviously cares little about the much larger ramifications of McDonald v. Chicago.

From that, one can surmise his anti-gun bias.

What he doesn't understand is that many of us really don't care what sins Alan may or may not have committed. I certainly don't.

If Slaughterhouse gets reversed, it will be a huge windfall for all civil liberties. For some reason, Rick just doesn't understand the magnitude of this and instead decided to focus his article to attack Alan personally.

I'll say it again... penny wise and pound foolish.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 9:58AM

Carl Bussjaeger says:

Oleg, thanks for the clarification. I thought Anderson's claim sounded odd.

As a writer, I take the unauthorized/unattributed use of other people's work seriously; and as a gunnie, particularly so in this case.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 9:59AM

A. Dawson says:

btw... Oleg... I love your photos!

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 9:59AM

Oleg Volk says:

Speaking of Alan: he is an articulate writer. I designed the covers for his last two books.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 10:04AM

Cold Servings says:

I guess the author of the following:

"These guy would rather take a life than get a life. Gun nuts for real. Thin-skinned to boot."

Believes it's preferable for my wife to be found dead in an alley somewhere with her pantyhose wrapped around her neck and a rapist's semen dripping down her leg than alive, with a dead rapist at her feet and a smoking gun in her hand.

I don't have guns to kill. I have guns to protect lives. If that means the death of those who would threaten me and mine then so be it. I'd rather not be in that situation, but I'd still more rather be the one who comes home safely to his family at the end of the day.

As for the criminal's family--if he wants to protect them, then find a different line of work.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 2:40PM

Leon Jester says:

"I don't have guns to kill. I have guns to protect lives. If that means the death of those who would threaten me and mine then so be it. I'd rather not be in that situation, but I'd still more rather be the one who comes home safely to his family at the end of the day."

Got it in one.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 5:24PM

Leon Jester says:

Rick A says:
Indeed, it's Oleg Volk's photo, glad to attribute as he asks in a phone call (he was satisfied with that and did not ask for a photo credit line under the pic).

1) One does not "ask" for a credit line. Photos are ALWAYS credited, even if it's simply "Staff Photo". Mr. Volk should not have had to make a telephone call.

2) A professional does not steal (unless said professional is a career thief).

QED.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 5:38PM

Anonymous says:

Yes,Bazooka, and My Own Drummer (though if you stop smoking pot, you might stop hearing that drummer), we're all a bunch of poopyheads.

Unfortunately, that horrible, evil Constitution states that we can be poopyheads if we choose.

I guess you better move to France.

And "allowing" my daughter to be photographed by a professional, with the completely legal gun she asked to have custom built for her, that costs about $1000 minus optics and suppressor is "abuse"? I welcome that charge. Call the cops and complain. I'll sit here and snicker.

Wait until you see her little brother's Transformer yellow and black rifle.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 19 2009 @ 7:12PM

Mackey Chandler says:

The young lady in the picture is not posed to disturb people. I have shot with her and she never points that weapon where it should not be aimed. I will turn my back on her without fear which is far more than I can say of many adults. As for the use of the picture I have a brief statement: Thief!

Posted On: Friday, Nov. 20 2009 @ 9:23AM

RC's son says:

Mackey Chandler: there is no higher compliment in terms of gun handling than "I would turn my back on her without fear."

Consider how few of the sheep spewing anti-gun rants here have the presence of mind, concentration and common sense to win that accolade.

Posted On: Friday, Nov. 20 2009 @ 10:36PM

Tmm says:

Why I'm glad I don't have a gun...

No one can take it away from me.

No child will ever take my gun to school.

No criminal will ever use my gun in a crime.

No one will ever use my gun to kill or injure any living thing.

BTW - going on 60 yrs old - lived in some rough places - solved a few things with my fists...

Feel sorry for those of you who got have those guns.

Posted On: Sunday, Nov. 22 2009 @ 5:58PM

Andrew Kirch says:

@TMM
I can say the same on all of those except the last one. Why does carrying a gun equate to a total lack of responsibility. With 200,000,000 guns in the US, (that's a LOT OF '0's) only a few of those, a fraction of a fraction of a percent) make it to school a year.

As to your rather pathetic list of priorities, I can and have the right to use my gun to kill and injure living things. The second amendment gives me that right.
Perhaps if you'd exercised civic responsibility in your 60 years I wouldn't have to carry a gun for my 60 years. Thanks to the cowardice of your generation mine's now picking up the pieces. You guys did great on Vietnam, and civil rights. So great that we lost the war, and the top cause of death for a black male 18-35 is homicide. They don't have the best marksmanship though, so at some point they're going to miss each other and hit me.
My father was murdered, but he's not a homicide victim, I am, and I'll carry my gun until you come pry it from my cold dead hands.

Posted On: Sunday, Nov. 22 2009 @ 6:08PM

A. Dawson says:

Everyone reading this thread needs to stop looking at this court case (McDonald v. Chicago) so narrow mindedly.

This is about *ALL* our privileges and immunities... ****ALL**** of them.

>>> This is about restoring the 14th Amendment's P&I clause back from the dead.

All people from all walks of life should be supporting this case. I'd be interested to see what reasonable point of view someone might have for *NOT* supporting the petitioners.

(For the record: I am very pro-gun... if someone doesn't like them and wishes to be unarmed... I have no problem with it... so long as they respect my right to keep and bear arms.)

Posted On: Sunday, Nov. 22 2009 @ 6:20PM

Andrew Gottlieb says:

While I was not a fan of Anderson's first article I was glad to see the issue getting attention. The issue at hand is one that most people would rather see hidden under a rug. I want to thank Anderson for taking the time to write a piece on my dad as well as giving more publicity to the case in Chicago.

To the readers I want to say that I am glad you have your own opinions on the issue but I suggest you keep an open mind regardless of what side you are on now. If you don't have an open mind then you make yourself blind. If you looked into my dad you would find that although he likes guns he cares more about fighting for our rights and that is what is important.

Posted On: Monday, Nov. 23 2009 @ 6:20AM

Andrew Kirch says:

@Andrew G:
First of all I have to say that your old man has an overabundance of common sense, at least insomuch as he gave you the best possible first name.
I don't think I've expressed a concern about Anderson's position but I do have _STRONG_ and valid concerns about his misuse of a picture of a child. (and if the previous sentence makes your skin crawl a little, that's how you know I'm right. :) )
For what it's worth, I'm an NRA member, NRA-ILA member and have been debating on getting an SAF membership for quite awhile. So what's the SAF's answer to my question above? How closely do you want to be associated with the sort of person who steals a picture of a child?

Posted On: Monday, Nov. 23 2009 @ 8:46AM

Gerry Adams says:

Andrew, find a life. That picture was floating all over the internet. And the writer credited it when the photo-taker identified himself, and allowed him to use it. But you're another great advertisement for the deep thought process so common to the NRA.

Posted On: Monday, Nov. 23 2009 @ 12:58PM

A. Dawson says:

Gerry...

I would say that all Andrew is trying to do (admittedly ad naseum) is to point out the hypocrisy of the author, Rick.

Rick looked for the dirt on Alan Gottlieb... he didn't bother to take an in depth look at what this SCOTUS case is about. I believe Andrew is simply trying to hold Rick to the same standard he established by his (dirt digging, narrow minded) article.

Posted On: Monday, Nov. 23 2009 @ 1:05PM

Andrew Kirch says:

@A Dawson:

Exactly correct. The only thing you can do to make some people accountable is to hold them accountable, and to keep holding them accountable for their actions until they own up. It's not politically correct to say "you were wrong and now you have to make amends" but it's the right thing to do, and I'll keep doing it until amends are made.

I have to say though that the SAF is too close to this for my comfort, and this truly disappoints me.

If the pen is mightier than the sword, Rick had demonstrated that he needs to be subjected to harsh and immediate pen control. I would like to pass federal laws which prohibit him from using that pen. Also he should not be allowed to carry it openly in public, he is a danger to himself and others when he has that pen.

Posted On: Monday, Nov. 23 2009 @ 7:33PM

A. Dawson says:

@Andrew Kircher

A better metaphor in this instance is that the 1st Amendment only prohibits the Federal gov't from restricting Rick's right to free speech. The state of Washington or its municipalities can trample on his use of the pen if they chose to do so. An equivalent 14th amendment lawsuit (like McDonald v. Chicago) would extend those 1st Amendment restrictions against the states / municipalities.

Again... no one seems to understand where McDonald v. Chicago fits into the bigger puzzle. This case is not deciding whether or not the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right or even the scope of that right. This case is about whether or not the 2nd Amendment gets 14th Amendment protection. McDonald et al's lawyer, Alan Gura, has written a daring brief. He's arguing that the slaughterhouse cases need to be reversed. The net effect of this is MUCH greater than the 2nd Amendment... it would apply to ***ALL*** privileges and immunities. INCLUDING the 1st amendment.

I would also add that Rick's copyright violation isn't an issue for SAF. You can't expect SAF to go around righting all wrongs. It's outside the scope of what they do. However, that doesn't make Rick any less of douche bag either. Do what you want with SAF, but don't judge them on their lack action regarding this infringement on this silly blog. That's Oleg Volk's fish to fry. (Please note: If Oleg got permission from the father / daughter, the only person Rick would need to get permission from is Oleg.)

Posted On: Monday, Nov. 23 2009 @ 8:21PM

Carl Bussjaeger says:

Gerry Adams: "And the writer credited it when the photo-taker identified himself, and allowed him to use it."

You're editing reality a little bit there. First, Anderson used the photo without authorization or attribution. When Volk became aware of this, he called the SW. The SW would not return his calls, so Volk turned the matter over to his attorney. Only then did Anderson contact Volk. Anderson then posted a comment (behind dozens more from readers) claiming that Volk didn't "ask" for attribution on the photo. Volk then pointed out that he had indeed, which means Anderson lied.

The usual method of attributing a photo accomanying an article is to caption the photo with something along these lines:
"Photo Credit - Oleg Volk"
"(c) Oleg Volk, used with permission"
Or even, assuming he honestly didn't know the source:
"Photo Credit - Unknown"
I've also seen web crediting done with a hyperlink.

As a presumed professional journalist, Anderson would know that, unless he produced the photo himself or obtained it from a licensed art collection, it needed some form of attribution.

I note that a full week after publication, the photo still does not have an attribution caption.

Basically, Anderson stole, stalled, and lied.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 24 2009 @ 7:34AM

Andrew Kirch says:

@A Dawson: Being exceptionally stupid of course I don't understand the historical significance of the Slaughterhouse cases.

Of course Mike gave Oleg permission to publish these pictures, I would also assume that there was either a written or unwritten trust that Oleg wouldn't exploit the girl in the manner Anderson has. There is a larger issue here you're trying hard to avoid and that is that Oleg had every right to say no to this usage of the photo, and I'm betting he probably would have. This fact extends this past a simple claim of Copyright which has been ignored.
Perhaps this isn't an issue for SAF, but I don't like to be in nearly so close company with thieves and liars as they are here.

Anderson stole, Anderson lied, and now Anderson needs to apologize.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 24 2009 @ 8:41AM

A. Dawson says:

@Andrew Kirch

My intent was not to offend you.

If Volk's/SAF's apparent lack of response to this thread bothers you that much, there are probably many tactics that the pro-gun lobby has done that would probably bother you. I won't repeat them here because I don't want give ammo to those who disparage those entities. If you want to continue this discussion off-thread, contact me. But I suggest we hang together lest we hang separately.

I agree Anderson should be apologizing for his professional misconduct. As a whole the public has not taken the media to task for these sorts of mis-steps and the leash they've been given has gotten a bit too long.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 24 2009 @ 8:54AM

A. Dawson says:

@ Rick...

There is a free seminar covering copyright basics being put on by the American Society of Media Photographers.

I suggest you attend. You think someone who claims to be as seasoned as you should know this stuff.

http://coocoo-for-coca-puffs.blogspot.com/2009/11/artists-attend-free-interactive-seminar.html

Posted On: Wednesday, Dec. 2 2009 @ 4:03PM

Rick Anderson says:

From Rick Anderson: Oleg, your comment is considerably different than your phone call and -you left out - your emails. You did not request attribution, but in fact merely a mention in the comments, as you well know. I also added your net address(es) and a nice comment; in return I get this contrary, shall we say, response and an insult to go along with it. Muddled, indeed.

Posted On: Monday, Dec. 14 2009 @ 6:26AM