FBI director on Heller

Mueller's statements are nearly as incredulous as that position recently taken by the ACLU.

The gun bloggers are seriously taking these folks to task, and in increasingly meaningful ways. These inconsistencies simply cannot stand, and I predict, will not stand. There are simply too many of us who tell the truth and stand our ground (to partially quote Kristofferson). And that is the way it should be.

Kudos to all of you, and all of you who call and write letters and just talk to folks you meet.

well looks like he is following in the footsteps of his predecessor Louis Freeh..

either way it seems like he is interviewing for the next administration ..

Police chiefs, LEOs, and apprently FBI directors that support gun control always seem to use that tired old cliche about people carrying guns being a danger to themselves and to others. Then they go on to add that LEOs aren't a danger to themselves because of their "training". Somehow a little training at the academy and a yearly qualification elevates them above the rest of us who have been shooting since childhood and who continue to shoot many times per year. I'm talking about those of us who learned how to respect firearms and handle, operate, and store them safely. Many have even taken various classes on basic shooting, combat shooting, self defense, etc.

I'm really growing tired of these people putting a higher value on their own lives than they do on the rest of ours.

The image of guns as killing machines is a big problem for those of us that see guns as tools to SAVE the lives and freedom of those we care about and ourselves. One way to get that point across is to point out that in the large majority of cases when a victim pulls a gun the criminals run away. Thus not only are the lives and property of the victim saved, even the life of the criminal is saved. In other words guns SAVE LIVES more often then they kill. And when they do kill they often kill bad people, which may even save lives of future victims of the criminal as well as the immediate victims. People need to be encouraged to carry in order to protect those around them even if they think carrying is too much trouble just for protecting themselves. It's not just OK if you want to, it's your duty to protect innocent people around you. If you don't put your child in a car seat you are considered negligent for not protecting your child. If you don't carry a gun then you might be considered negligent for allowing your child to be in a vulnerable unprotected situation when it's easy to just plop a protective device into your purse. Kids don't need to have armed guards at all times, but if it's not too much trouble then they should be protected.

The unfortunate thing about concealed carry is that women are the least risk and could derive the most benefit, and yet don't get permits as much as men. If we could encourage mothers to protect their kids then we could dramatically increase political support for the right to bear arms. It'll be hard to overcome the bogus studies and advice they hear from the media though.

Why doesn't he just say, "You People" and get it over with? On on the eve of the Fourth of July, no less.

The 21st Century's Declaration of Dependence starts with those immortal words, "You People shouldn't have ..." Now, instead of "Government by the People", it is now "Government for You People".

If those two little words wrecked Ross Perot, why not Robert Mueller?

As the precocious Gov. Lepetomaine once said, "Gentlemen, we have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs".

Police chiefs, LEOs, and apperntly FBI directors that support gun control always seem to use that tired old cliche about people carrying guns being a danger to themselves and to others. Then they go on to add that LEOs aren't a danger to themselves because of their "training".

It isn't the "training" on GUNS that gives the brass confidence in them. It's their "training" to respect the chain of command.

They are trusted because they do what they are TOLD to do, as opposed to the rest who haven't had the benefit of "training".

“The image of guns as killing machines is a big problem for those of us that see guns as tools to SAVE the lives and freedom of those we care about and ourselves. One way to get that point across is...”

Try open carry. I can tell you from firsthand experience that openly carrying your firearm presents a wholly different (positive) image of firearms and firearms owners than concealed carry ever could.

I would like to know on what statistics he bases this "belief." I can't believe that if we looked at all gun owners, or even at those who regularly carry, that the number of those who are injured by their own guns would be any more than a blip. If we look at the numbers who have actually used guns in confrontations with criminals, it might be a fractionally larger blip -- I'm sure from time to time someone gets a gun taken away and used on them -- but still a blip. Just because he has an important position does not make his "beliefs" sacrosanct.

I have to wonder...

Does "Muley" consider half the population potential prostitutes because they possess the necessary equipment?

And the other half... potential rapists?

I hope he finds a suitable "equipment-free" college for his grandkids.

For the Critic:

Criminals who run away live to rob and kill another day - that's not so the JoeHorn® way­™

>>>Criminals who run away live to rob and kill another day - that's not so the JoeHorn® way­™

****

Heh. "Eff" with a bull, and you get the "HORN".

Thomas Jefferson ... "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

Easy to see who is on the side of Freedom and Liberty. It's always been that way with the Second Amendment, separates the wheat from the chaff real quick. If they don't trust you owning a gun, then what will they trust you with.

Why doesn't he just say, "You People" and get it over with? On on the eve of the Fourth of July, no less.

You mean Independence Day?

The FBI director was talking about us 'civilians'. Surely you know the elite were not talking about themselves! They are prefect, we are just grasping at our guns and religion when depressed.

Given how often the FBI has "shot itself in the foot", I can see how Mueller is confused.

Witness the recent settlement with Hatfield.

Mainsail (Chris) Open carry is not permitted in many states, sounds good, but not a good idea in some places unless you don't mind risking someone taking it from you.

Does Mueller think that those of us who had weapons training in the military and carried them in a war became incompetent and dangerous when we became civilians? And as someone once said referring to the training LEOs have, "What do they learn that no one else can learn?"

I don't think open carry is a good idea for self defense in an urbanized area; BUT, I do think it serves another important function! It desensitizes the public to the sight of guns in the possession of the honest citizen. I think a mix of open and concealed carry in a high enough concentration in an urban setting would combine the positive effects of both while the negative aspects of each would be somewhat reduced.

Alan A,
Your right, open carry has a very important(and immediate) impact on most citizens in the public arena, this is very clearly proved by the instance of a police officer on foot patrol on the street with his sidearm clearly visible. And your right again, open carry by citizens in a urban area can lead to an individual knowing that you are more than likely alone and with no backup or radio to call police officers for help should a individual choose to assault you in an attempt to take your firearm. example: come up behind you and hit you on the head and try to knock you out to steal your firearm.
It amazes me to no extent that I read in states west of the mississippi river carrying a pistol had to be unconcealed as compared to the east coast where the opposite holds true. I found this hard to believe, but it would not surprise me if some of the states in the west or like new mexico had this rule.

If what the illustrious director said was even remotely true, the New York Times (and their ilk) should have a new poster child every week for the dangers of having a gun. But I don't recall EVER seeing a story about a Jane Smith who had a gun but had it taken away and used against her. I'm sure that it has happened somewhere, sometime. But the absence of specific stories from the media whose agenda would be advanced by such stories suggests that the rate at which such events occur is EXTREMELY low. Certainly far below the level that should influence any policy decision.