Second Amendment rally set for Saturday - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Second Amendment rally set for Saturday

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:00 am

COEUR d'ALENE - There will be a Second Amendment rally and gun appreciation event at 1 p.m. Saturday at Black Sheep Sporting Goods along U.S. 95 at Bosanko.

Guest speakers include state legislators, Ed Santos of Center Target Sports and Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers.

Attendees should bring their own signs in support of the Constitution. Open carry is encouraged.

Information: Scott Whitehurst,

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Insider posted at 4:24 am on Wed, Mar 6, 2013.

    Insider Posts: 360

    Weak sauce, weak argument. A nuke is ordinance, not a firearm. You obviously have no knowledge of stats and self defense. We're all super happy you are an expert shot.

  • juno posted at 1:19 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

    juno Posts: 113

    Haven't been here awhile. Interesting that Joe of Idaho is still wasting space on the internet.
    But it is nice that he kept "a low profile".
    So, your constitution says that "all citizens of America have the right to bear ALL arms".
    Does that include a nuclear bomb ?
    When the much misinterpreted 2nd amendment was conceived it took a minute to load on inaccurately shooting musket. Times have changed. In this age of military style assault guns no one in his right mind would come up with a second amendment.
    At the minimum, the possession of such arms and high capacity ammo clips should be outlawed.
    In over 25 years of hunting I had to use only a few times more than one shot to put down the animal.
    There is no sane reason to hunt with semi automatic weapons.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:27 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    And Efromm, you're right, we're more & more on the same page I'm seeing. The Rally was awesome, I kept a very low profile m'self.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:26 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    OK, you actually want answers, when most every one has BEEN typed in here for the last 3 weeks?
    (A) Per the Constitution, all citizens of America have the right to bear ALL arms. The Supreme Court, is allowing some weapons to be illegal, was wrong in it's premise, and they know it; otherwise they woudl have banned all weapons instead of just automatics. The Constitution is specifically amended to ensure that citizens; if ever faced with a tyrannical government foreign OR domestic; have every ability to fight same entity. The primary reason for this is the Revolutionary War; when the Revolutionaries started to fight; they were not an organized Army, so they were at a distinct disadvantage against a well armed & prepared adversary in the British Army AND Navy. This should never happen again.
    The second reason is equally simple; the founding Fathers knew that the Republic was weak, and could at some point become weak again. By ensuring that the citizenry had EVERY RIGHT to bear arms; they knew that in the event of a government collapse or the government being overrun by an enemy; the citizenry would have every opportunity to defend themselves, instead of being subject to slavery at the hands of an invader.
    (B) Self protection. IF a bad guy KNOWS I have a gun, or many; of huge magazines, chances are if he has the slightest bit of common sense, he'll turn away from me; or not perpetrate whatever idiocy he wants to do.
    (C) I CAN prove that guns have saved lives over & over throughout history. They do this every day in the hands of our excellent law enforcement, and they do it with the citizenry as well. The guy in the Hoagie shop that ran out against the idiot holding a knife to the throat at Goodwill this last winter is a classic example. This happened in downtown Coeurd'alene, and it happens all the time, but mostly doesn't make the news. Ask ANY policeman or woman, they'll tell you.
    (D) As to those Law Enforcement people, and their opinion on guns, they'll also tell you that their opinion will vary based on location. If you're in Detroit, and the criminals use guns to rob & do bad things every day, they need to be banned, right? But if you're in CDA, and there's literally no crime comitted with them, and the police KNOW that the citizens will back their play (as I will & have) with your guns, they are an ASSET to law enforcement.

  • efromm posted at 11:03 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 684

    @curiouser look under your original post I responded and some one else did too. You really need to look before you judge.

    @joeidaho I responded to you too under your post. They do not go to the top of the list if you hit reply. They are nested below the post you are replying too..

  • curiouser posted at 10:16 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    curiouser Posts: 81

    I think it is dishonest and cowardly to not answer the question. While you may believe my post shows my point of view, there was no "point" made, just a question. There are many possible responses that may be reasonable and helpful in understanding another's point of view.

    Maybe multiple choice will help you:
    No, it is not worth it for one, but maybe for thousands, as that is how many would be lost in a war . . .

    Or No, because it is for our very rights that we should be willing to die . . .

    Or No, because by owning maximum firepower I believe I can actually SAVE life. . .

    Or No, because it is just too much fun to shoot these awsome weapons and the life of a child isn't worth me giving up something that is just plain FUN.

    See? People may assume 2nd amendment folks would choose the final answer, but I suspect that isn't where you really are, and this could be opportnitiy for rational discussion rather than name calling and side-stepping a real issue. Do I expect too much?

  • Close Enough posted at 10:15 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Close Enough Posts: 134

    One word answer: No.

    Longer answer: Why are you so quick to suggest we should limit our rights? Do you not understand the role of government/governed? Rights are only rights because they have been fought for. Would you like to limit free speech while you're at it? Why not limit the following:
    - 1st Amendment: right to assemble...
    - 4th: preventing unreasonable search and seizure
    - 6th: jury trials

    For Brevity's sake I'll stop there. Why are you so quick to forfeit a right?

  • efromm posted at 9:42 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 684

    NO. Don't care how many die. I won't give up my weapons ever. It's pointless to try to argue against death. YOU WILL DIE SOMEDAY PERIOD! It does not matter if it is a gun or not. Death is a fact of life. Stop fearing death. It only makes you paranoid and full of fear. Fear is a tactic people use to keep and gain control over you. Fear keeps you from enjoying life. If people loved their fellow man and respected one another as CHRIST TAUGHT we would not be in this situation in the first place.

  • efromm posted at 9:21 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 684

    Thanks Joe! I would have said hi but I do not know who you are. I told you we had a lot more in common than you thought. I was standing by the black sheep trailer taking photos for my blog next to the guy with the only M1 Garand there. Good rally. Reminded me of the first Tea Party at Independence point. I took photos there too...

  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:13 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    You musta been spitting when you wrote that, huh churlie?
    And I dropped out in 78th grade, and I BET I still made 40 TIMES as much money as you have. Good thing you got "edumacated" though....(whenever a conservative says anything you don't like, just call them a "racist!" of "Hillbilly!")
    Words of wisdom....not.

  • efromm posted at 9:13 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 684

    California will be under attack from Mexico. It already is La Raza or whatever that are called have declared war on Cali. They want their land back that they lost. LA is a part of that land. They are not using weapons to a large extent yet. But they are strangling the California economy. And so far they are winning. The state is bankrupt. And trying to steal as much money from it's citizens to save it's self. It's too late for Cali I am afraid. The rest of the border with Mexico is under attack from drug lords. It's easy to look up on the internet. You can only run away from it for so long before it comes to your town. Take a lesson from the Native Americans. We ran them over with sheer numbers and better weaponry. They eventually had no real choice, they had no where to run.

    I find it interesting that people keep putting their heads in the sand. Talk to any retired LA police officer who is retired here now and they will tell ya how bad the people really are down there. Obviously tens of thousands agree cause they have been fleeing that state to Oregon, Nevada,Arizona,Washington,Montana,and Idaho for the last 20 years. And what are they in search of? Freedom from the gangs and over taxation. I never said Idaho would be attacked directly. Although just across the border in Spokane is a bunch a criminals and gangs. That are basically running the PD ragged. Cars are getting stolen and personal property crime is at an all time high.

    Our car was stolen over there a few years back when we were at a hockey game. The police would not even take a report. We could not afford to lose my Wife's car. But we did. It devastated our family. I was lucky enough to have a friend who sold me a car for a great price and really saved us. We eventually got her car back months later. And the radio was gone and they took other things off of the car. It cost us a grand plus to fix it so she could drive it again. This is a common occurrence over there. It's why I no longer go to Spokane. You nor your property are safe over there.

    If there is civil unrest the police are powerless to help you. It is up to you to protect yourself at that point. And while you have your single shot weapons the criminals will have the upper hand. LA riots ring a bell? People were murdered right in the street. Drug out of their cars. No amount of pleading will help you. You cannot reason with a mob.

    And so here you are in CDA your pretty well insulated from a lot of the badness of the world. It is coming here now. People getting robbed in downtown Cda and raped. That used to not happen here. We have more cops here than we ever had before and yet crime is still happening.

    We have terrorists coming in from the Southern border. We have them getting in through the northern border of Canada. They really do not know how many are actually in the USA. And yet we should give up the very guns that would protect us and our property from them? I really wish that we did not need guns and WMD's. I wish that people could learn to be better and love one another. I have decided to look at the reality of the situation. And as long as people want power over one another there will always be conflict.

    Guns are not the problem. PEOPLE ARE! They always have been and continue to do so. For some reason we just cannot get along. We let our emotions speak before good common sense. If we would have been thinking after 911 we would have voted all those traitors out of office! They failed at their primary job, protecting America! And yet no one was fired. All the players are still there and they have more power than ever. They took 911 and used it against us. Spying on our citizens and leaving the borders wide open to more of them sneaking in. Look at what is happening across the country. Why are people feeling like they need to kill others? To take up arms and kill innocents. What can we really do? Can we afford put a cop on every street? No we cannot. But I am willing to carry my gun and protect you if the time arises. And I am willing to do it for free. Because I am being a responsible citizen. If your not armed your just a good victim.

    There are thousands of us in this town who do exactly that everyday. Would you want to try to rob a person knowing that they may have a weapon? A guy tried that at state line a few years ago and unfortunately for him ended up dead. I wonder if anyone else has tried to rob that establishment?

    I went to the rally today. I was with my Father. I heard the guy from center target sports talk about the fabric of society being torn apart and the destruction of the American family. The over use of psychotropic drugs today was mentioned. I find it interesting that Taxpayer says that those things were not mentioned today. I heard them. And after the rally a lot of us hung out and talked for awhile about those very things. If your going to criticize us and vilify us then you want to quarrel with us. That is no way to act if you want community.

    So again I ask WHY ARE YOU HERE! WHY DO YOU MOVE HERE AMONG US AND CRITICIZE YOUR NEW NEIGHBORS! No one made you move here. You choose to do so of your own free will. Those of us who have lived here for multiple decades have worked hard to be a community. And yet you vilify us and condemn us? You live in constant fear of your fellow man who wants peace and tranquility just as much as you do, your not being very neighborly. And your showing that you are bigoted and hypocritical and un accepting something you want from us but will not give in return.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:09 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM, this is goofy:
    "Let's say you're right about California (even though you're not)"
    OK, so I'll agree with you. Californians are better armed & more prepared to defend themselves than Idahoans are. Sure. Right.

    "taxpayer", another PURELY misguided soul, thought that today's rally was about gun "responsibility & training".
    Evidently "taxpayer" MISSED the part about the LOSS of the Second Amendment, which is WHY those people were AT the gathering.

    To "curiouser":
    IF it were proven that if liberals left Idaho, it would be a better state; would you leave?
    Your argument is POINTLESS.
    If this REALLY is your point; why do you make it only about guns? Oh, really; it's an AGENDA?
    No doubt.

  • curiouser posted at 8:30 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    curiouser Posts: 81

    I have one short question, that only requires a yes / no answer. I think the arguements are at the core due to a variance in basic belief/opinion.

    To the 2nd ammendment folks: IF it were proven that the proposed changes in availability of certain types of weapons and ammo clips would, if enacted, save ONE life, would you agree to them?

    I realize you would like to agure the "IF" or dispute the possiblity that it could be proven, but I would really like to see someone have the courage to answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no."

    If your answer is "NO" is it a matter of scale? For example, how about 10 lives? 100 lives?

    Please respond.

  • taxpayer posted at 8:00 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    taxpayer Posts: 343

    I take this info is based on a scientific survey of the people who live here

  • taxpayer posted at 7:59 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    taxpayer Posts: 343

    based on watching the people today, it is sad to see they were more concerned about the right to own a gun rather than being a responsible gun owner and the state of our society, we have a gun crazy violent society, peoples behavior gets worse everyday, daily someone goes crazy with a gun, too many have access to guns who have no business having guns, we should have them them for hunting, sports, collections, personal protection

    so sad we have to protect ourselves from so many crazy people

    our society is broken and needs fixing, where have all the leaders gone?

  • charliek60 posted at 6:48 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    charliek60 Posts: 204

    I bet you can read but you can't comprehend what your reading. ok enough

    Love jesus love peopel

  • charliek60 posted at 6:45 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    charliek60 Posts: 204

    Don't you know anything ? You must be from out of State . Are you a racist or a skinhead ?

    The word hillilly doesnt have a negative connotation. Didn't you go to school past 6th Grade?

  • The Golden Mean posted at 6:17 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Let's say you're right about California (even though you're not), still don't know why North Idaho would be attacked.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 4:45 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM, HOW would Californians stop anything? Seriously? They hate guns, and no doubt are sure none of us have teeth; so how's that work?

    Efromm's 4:09 post was excellent. Thanks Efromm-

  • The Golden Mean posted at 4:33 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Even if you libs don't like us if we get attacked we will be dying to protect you."

    "If" we get attacked... No foot soldier will ever make it to North Idaho. Odds are that your countrymen in California will stop any "If" before it reaches Nevada.

    Still not sure why North Idaho would be attacked by anybody... Maybe this is a good time to hide the huckleberries, just to be safe.

  • efromm posted at 4:09 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 684

    I find it interesting that liberals move to a state full of people who have guns. And they complained about the state they were in and all the gang violence. And yet they are hiding out here with us gun owners. I am betting your safer here than in San Fran or LA. Get to know your neighbors for once. Stop looking at us with suspicion. Stop acting like you did where you came from. BE ACCEPTING OF OTHERS IT IS WHAT YOU EXPECT OF US! You might like shooting once you try it.

    We have the largest standing army in the world. Even if you libs don't like us if we get attacked we will be dying to protect you. Give us a chance. You might actually like some of us and learn a few things. Fear is a terrible thing to live with....

  • Keven Johnson posted at 4:08 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1381

    Did any of you commenters attend the rally today? I did, and so did probably 1500 to 2000 others, many openly carrying pistols and semi automatic rifles.

    Guess what? No shots fired, no threats made, no trouble whatsoever except the traffic getting out, it was so popular! All in all a very educational, inspirational, and peaceful exercise of our first amendment rights as free Americans!

  • Keven Johnson posted at 4:03 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1381

    Eddie, once again you've made a great point. It is true the 2nd amendment was written in the context of a well regulated militia. What you don't seem to understand is that in the context of the time it was written, The "Well Regulated Militia" that the 2nd amendment talks about is US! We the people - - you and I - - ARE the militia! We were never supposed to have a huge standing army. The militia - - meaning all of us - - are ultimately responsible for the security of our country and for guarding our freedom.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 3:11 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Oh my daring, oh my daring
    Oh my daring Barney Fife
    He's a deadly crime stopper
    What a copper Barney Fife

    Oh my Barney, oh my Barney
    Had a jail but couldn't lock it
    Had one bullet for his pistol
    Had to keep it in his pocket

    -Sheriff Andy Taylor (Father of Common Sense Gun Control)

  • ancientemplar posted at 3:04 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    ancientemplar Posts: 1260

    Alcohol, tobacco and firearms,---- whose bring the chips? Its bound to be a great gathering!

  • EddieCox posted at 2:51 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    Keven: It states that in the context of a "well-regulated militia" the right will not be infringed. You have to consider the full content - you can't pick and choose the phrase that supports your argument and ignore the rest. So if you are part of a well-regulated militia, you get to use the big guns. But for those of us who are not in a well-regulated militia, the Supreme Court has determined that certain "infringements" or regulations are not in violation of the Second Amendment. Now I don't fully agree with everything the Supreme Court decides. But I have to live with it if I want to be a law-abiding citizen of this country. And in this case I do agree with the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment specifically refers to a well-regulated militia. So anyone who can't live with that should go live in a country that has more liberal guns laws than the U.S. I believe the only country is Yemen. Have a nice trip.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 2:50 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Concerned about people who insist on taking away other people's money, possessions, and guns. Definitely makes them more powerful when they rmove what belongs to other people.
    I like Clint Eastwood's style, you knoew he wasn't playing, communication was instant, clear, and effective.

    Today, some might say that folks like Barney Fife shouldn't have guns, because (supposedly) people know what is goign to happen. Me, I stick up for Barney's RIGHTS; regardless of how much other people think they MUST control what Barney does.
    See, Barney never BROKE THE LAW.
    Doesn't matter though, he MIGHT, and that's enough for Liberals to take what rightfully BELONGS to Barney Fife.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:51 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Concerned about people who change when they have a gun in their hand. Heard some say that they feel more "powerful" - Same goes for some folks in the open carry fashion shows.

    I like Sheriff Andy Taylor's style more than Barney Fife's. Andy new better than to give a guy like Barney more than one round at a time (to carry in his pocket).

    Today, some might say that Sheriff Taylor was anti-Second Amendment. I say that those folks should also be rationed bullets.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:41 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "I'll be the one wearing a Wolf's head hat"

    Make sure to fasten the chin strap, heard it might be windy outside.

  • Keven Johnson posted at 12:18 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1381

    Eddie, the last line in your comment is spot on. The constitution doesn't give me, you, or anybody else ANY rights whatsoever. It merely guarantees natural rights we were born with.

    As far as your contention that the 2nd amendment isn't being violated, I disagree. It states ".... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED". I just google'd the definition of "infringe". It is "to act so as to limit or undermine". In other words, our right to bear arms does not have to be completely taken away to violate the 2nd amendment. ANY act which limits or undermines that right is by definition an infringement, and therefore a violation of the 2nd amendment.

  • aayupp posted at 12:02 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    aayupp Posts: 316

    great place to stage a rally. love the place and totally support the responsible gun owners of the greatest country in the world! LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • EddieCox posted at 11:58 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    Yes, Keven, I agree with most of what you said. Except for your suggestion that another right is being taken away. NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT AWAY!! Sorry to yell, but so many people are spreading fear where fear is not warranted. The 2nd amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court allows for some regulations. That is all that is being proposed. Regulations. No one is trying to do away with the 2nd amendment. I don't understand how anyone can think that giving up the most dangerous weapons, weapons that were intended to be used in wars, is not worth it if it will reduce, even a little, the probability that more little kids will be slaughtered like they were in Connecticut. So stop feeling like you are losing any more rights because the Constitution didn't give you the right of unregulated gun ownership in the first place.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 11:02 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Yah I bet, Flash. Wear a big peace sign so I know who you are, 'k? I'll be the one wearing a Wolf's head hat.

  • Keven Johnson posted at 10:57 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1381

    There are "crazies" and there are "skinheads" I'm sure, but they are not even close to being representative of most in the liberty movement. We are Americans who go to work, pay our bills, pay our taxes, and try to be as self reliant as possible. That includes taking some responsibility for protecting ourselves, our loved ones, and our homes from harm. It's been said so often it's almost a cliche, but it is true; when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. This isn't a jab at police; it is just a fact.

    I find it amusing that I'm now considered a "gun nut" and an 'extremist". Anyone who knows me might call me a "car nut" or a "motorhead" but certainly not a gun nut. I've owned one handgun since 1987 and maybe shot 50 rounds through it, just to make sure it shoots where I point it. So I hardly qualify as a "gun nut / extremist" except in the eyes of those who really are extreme on the other side of the issue.

    History is full of examples of societies that have been disarmed, only to have tyranny follow. We have already lost many of our natural rights, guaranteed by our constitution. The patriot act decimated the 4th amendment which guarantees against unreasonable search and siezure; The 2012 NDAA contains language that violates the 5th amendment guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The first amendment is constantly under attack by those who label political speech "extreme" simply because they disagree. With all that is going on, can we really afford to lose any more rights?

    Neither the 2nd amendment, nor the constitution as a whole, give us any rights at all. The constitution merely guarantees that our natural rights which we are born with cannot be taken away. I don't even particularly like guns; to me a gun is a tool that allows me to protect my life, liberty, and property. And will all that is going on in our republic, we cannot afford to let any more of our natural rights be infringed.

  • EddieCox posted at 10:29 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    I just love it when Joe joins a conversation. Where, Joe has anyone advocated for the removal of the Second Amendment. And I agree, it was not about hunting or sporting competitions. But it is also not about allowing crazies with assault weapons to mow down children in school, or shoppers at a mall, or movie-theater goers. It is about a well-regulated militia. It's about the security of a free state. Even Justice Scalia upheld the "well-regulated" language in the Second Amendment. It's not that we are against guns. We are in favor of good regulation to make our country safer - as is Justice Scalia. This is one of the few things I agree with Justice Scalia about - and I strongly agree with him on this. So here AGAIN, is what Justice Scalia says about the Constitution. So if anyone is ignorant on the Constitution, it would be you.
    "... the Constitution permits a broad range of gun safety measures. In the landmark Second Amendment case, Heller v. DC, Justice Scalia argued that the state can restrict ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons and that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • Flash Gordon posted at 10:17 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1428

    Can't wait to rub gun handles with ya Joe:)

  • Truthful posted at 8:13 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Truthful Posts: 135

    Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney: Your comments reflect an irresponsible attitude toward the 1st Amendment in this country. You are attempting to initiate violence by your comments.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:39 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    That's all the communists have, names. If they disagree with you, you're a "racist" or a "skinhead", or a "hillbilly".
    The fact is that their group of morons in office are itching for a fight, and they're going ot get one. I think that "taxpayer" and "charliek" shoud go to the rally, and let some of these folks know that they're "skinheads & hillbillys". Of course, they'd never do that, because they only offend people online, and they'd probably get thrown back in their peace stickered little cars by some of the "rednecks".

    But PLEASE DO go there & tell some of the guys at the rally that they're all skinheads, see how it goes...

  • Intellectual Hick posted at 12:35 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Intellectual Hick Posts: 1

    Sad the the Left always resorts to ad hominem fallacies. Sorry Lefty, I mean "name-calling".

  • taxpayer posted at 10:41 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    taxpayer Posts: 343

    skinheads are alive and well in N Idaho, this will bring out the crazies

  • charliek60 posted at 10:32 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    charliek60 Posts: 204

    its hillbilly time . should be fun last time i was at a party with guns was in the 1970's at keggers around the lake ( old Fernan shooting range.) who's bring the kegs?

  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:21 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Great Britain Gun Deaths, 2012- TWELVE
    Idaho Gun Deaths, 2012- TWELVE
    Great Britain doesn't ALLOW her citizenry to have any self protection, so citizens aren't allowed to own guns there.
    Guess it didn't stop the gun crime, though....hmmmm....

  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:17 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    And Eddie Cox, you're the worst of the bunch, because you truly don't comprehend one THING about our Constitution. You should READ about why the Second Amendment exists, and WHY it was important enough that the Founding Fathers made it THE Second Amendment.
    It was not about background checks, and it wasn't about hunting; or safety classes. The Second Amendmnets PURPOSE is to allow individual citizens to have the RIGHT and more than that; ABILITY to fight against any form of tyranny, domestic or foreign.
    They specifically mentioned in much of their writings how important it was to never ever handicap the individual citizens in the same ways that the British did, and do, to THEIR citizens.
    You, though, you never READ any of this, and for you it's all about what YOU think is "reasonable".
    Me; I could CARE LESS what you think, for me it's about the Constitution, and upholding same, and not allowing ill-knowledged people like you to remove rights from perfectly law abiding citizenry.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:10 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    EVERY anti-gun zealot is folling themselves into following the party line. I know plenty of democrats who are PRO-gun, and PRO Second Amendment; the ones of you here that are for removing the second amendment are just too ginorant of our Constitution to have any comprehension of why it was written, and what it means.
    As to you DOLTS who think that the laws being made won't "take anyone's guns" etc, you are 1,000% wrong. And stupid.
    In New York, I have a friend who has guns, ammo, magazines, etc. The laws against magazines over 7 rounds just passed, and because my friend is a LAW ABIDING citizen, he had reported all that he owned.
    Yesteray, he received a call from a person from the State of New York, asking that he report to a Police Station to turn in his magazines that are over 7 rounds, as well as his "assault rifle".

    You people who are against guns are SO far removed form reality, it's scary, but I can tell you this, I have very grave doubts about how much more of this ignorance the rest of America is going to continue to put up with.
    The Rally tomorrow will be great; I'd like to see a couple of Blowbama stickers go walking past....maybe a coupla anti-NRA peeps too... bet they get a warm reception.....

  • The Golden Mean posted at 8:21 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "I am pro common sense gun safety regulations that will make our country safer for all of us"

    Yes! Thank you EddieCox!!!

  • EddieCox posted at 8:10 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    Well, Suki, that is an excellent analogy. I assume you are suggesting that guns should not be banned unless we are also willing to ban alcohol. And since we are not willing to ban alcohol, we should not ban guns. What the Obama Administration and the majority of Americans want to do is to put restrictions on the use of firearms, much like we have restrictions on the use of alcohol. So your analogy is a good one. In case you are not aware, there are restrictions on the use of alcohol. In some states, you can only buy it in a state-run store. So I guess the comparison here is that guns should only be sold by licensed dealers - or at least with a background check for all sales. And there are restrictions on who can use alcohol - like children, for example. And there are restrictions on what you can do when you are under the influence of alcohol - driving would be an example. And as for your SUV example, the privilege to drive could very well be taken away. But not from everybody. Just like no one is trying to take firearms away from everybody. And no, I will not resort to name calling. I think it is obvious that you are stupid. Besides, I am not an 'anti'. I own firearms. And I know I will be able to keep them. I can (did) pass a background check. I am pro common sense gun safety regulations that will make our country safer for all of us - just like regulations pertaining to alcohol and driving make our country safer for all of us. You are a person that I think should be "checked" to see if you qualify for gun ownership.
    Furthermore, perhaps you should read what the very conservative pro-gun rights Justice Scalia said about the Second Amendment:
    " ... the Constitution permits a broad range of gun safety measures. In the landmark Second Amendment case, Heller v. DC, Justice Scalia argued that the state can restrict ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons and that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • BoxcarBill posted at 6:17 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    BoxcarBill Posts: 1074

    ... will government photo id be required for admission or will the cameras suffice?

  • sukisuki posted at 4:43 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    sukisuki Posts: 24

    I'm wondering if alcohol should be banned? I mean really why do we need it? It has no function really except maybe to get someone drunk so they can get in a vehicle and kill someone. Or maybe so they can get in a bar fight and stab someone, or maybe so they can go home and beat the mess out of their spouse and kids. The only good thing about alcohol is that you can cook with it so why keep it around? You don’t NEED to have it, there is NO NEED to use it so why have it? I mean really, if some drunk gets in a car and uses that car to kill someone who's at fault? The guy, the car or the alcohol? Let's say the drunk person is driving a huge SUV, is doing 50 miles an hour through a school zone, jumps the curb and rolls through a school yard full of kids...who's to blame? The guy, the SUV or the alcohol? Do you take the alcohol and SUV away, ban them from everyone’s use because really…you don’t NEED alcohol and you don’t NEED SUV’s? Maybe you just punish the driver instead of everyone else who enjoys drinking alcohol and drives an SUV…Just saying… and now I’m sure all the anti’s will resort to name calling but hey…whatever.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 3:34 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Gun Laws are for law abiding citizens not for criminals"

    Where do people come up with stuff like that? It's like saying speeding tickets are for people who drive the speed limit.

    The NRA excuse for logic is insulting.

  • CaiusCosades posted at 3:23 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    The laws are to make these things less available knuckle head, not to try to get criminals to follow the rules.

  • northone9 posted at 2:18 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    northone9 Posts: 289

    Good ole, they would have a very hard time drawing their weapons without shooting themselves in the foot or groin. This has been proven time and time again. Sad really. Sucks to "think" your prepared when in reality your on the way to the hospital for a self inflicted gunshot wound. Or worse.
    Combat training is way too time consuming for the spray and pray crowd.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:13 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    What about the people who are against our 1st amendment?

  • EddieCox posted at 2:12 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    Mr. Name: But we have to try. Just like their argument that gun restrictions would not have stopped Sandy Hook, the truth is they might have saved even one child. If I can make even one person stop and think, or make one person realize that they did not know all the facts, I have to try. These people only listen to FoxNotNews. It's no wonder they think what they think. But the facts are the facts. Someone has to give them the facts.
    I just hope it doesn't take the death of one of their children to make them face reality.

  • COG777 posted at 2:10 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    COG777 Posts: 340

    Gun Laws are for law abiding citizens not for criminals. Criminals do not obey laws so why do some people believe that they would obey any new laws? To keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity and I do believe that those proposing that new gun laws will somehow make the criminals obey them have mental issues they definitely lack the ability to use reasoning and rational thinking.

  • Screen Name posted at 1:04 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 903


    I agree with your comments regarding the lawful restrictions on guns. However, I don't think you will be successful in getting those who disagree to come to your side. Facts don't matter to the right-wing gun zealots. You can lead a horse to water... They will continue to argue that they have an absolute right to any type of weapon they desire, even though that is a false assertion.

    It really is sad when "politicians" seize upon an opportunity to ingratiate themselves to a cause in a transparent attempt to increase their political capital. I wonder if Mr. Nonini has anything of substance to say regarding additional restrictions on guns, or if he is merely parroting his constituents views for his own gain. Got any original thoughts Bob that might convince me you have leadership qualities?

    Mr. Name

  • Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney posted at 12:13 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney Posts: 157

    It would be interesting to see how the events of the day would play out it if somebody throws a few firecrackers amongst the gathering crowd. Are these people for real? Oh wait it's Idaho.

  • Will Penny posted at 12:07 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Will Penny Posts: 291

    TO: area man

    "wooohooo! It's the "I'm more American than thou" rally"

    I guess that means you won't be there!

  • EddieCox posted at 11:48 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    And YOU, Cowgirl, are a good example of ignorance. Exactly what History are you referring to? Just because someone is in favor of restrictions that will keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, doesn't mean that they are against our 2nd amendment. Keeping military weapons out of our schools, churches, movie theaters, and shopping malls doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. Ronald Reagan didn't think it did. George H. W. Bush didn't think it did. He actually used an executive order to ban certain weapons - something that Obama has not done but Republicans are screaming to impeach him for something that he did not do, but their guy did. Scroll down and read what I posted earlier about Justice Scalia and his argument pertaining to the 2nd amendment. And don't call others "ignorant" until you educate yourself.

  • IdahoMan posted at 10:31 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    IdahoMan Posts: 100

    Quite a bit of anti-gun hate and gnashing of teeth going on here in the comments section.

    It's very, VERY cool to see a pro-gun rally here in Coeur d' Alene.

  • IdahoCowgirls posted at 10:18 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    IdahoCowgirls Posts: 1

    Awesome! People who are against our 2nd amendment are ignorant to History.

  • CaiusCosades posted at 10:17 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    You pro gun extremists are right. Your pop gun is going to do a lot when the government carpet bombs your neighborhood from bombers that are so quiet, fast, and high up there you won't even know they flew by, you'll just be here one minute and vapor the next.

    Good luck clinging to your guns. They sure are going to help a lot fighting off JDAMs and missles that can reach the middle of America when fired from a submarine.

  • EddieCox posted at 8:11 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    Seems to me that some are over-reacting to the proposal of gun safety protections. No one (including Obama) is trying to overturn the Second Amendment. No one (including Obama) is going to come and take all your guns. But go ahead and gather together to show your appreciation for your guns. I'll keep mine locked up until I actually need it. All anyone (including Obama) is trying to do is what Justice Scalia upheld in the landmark Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment.

    "... the Constitution permits a broad range of gun safety measures. In the landmark Second Amendment case, Heller v. DC, Justice Scalia argued that the state can restrict ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons and that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • EddieCox posted at 7:58 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    EddieCox Posts: 54

    librtyhuntr: To whom are you addressing your comment?

  • area man posted at 7:42 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    area man Posts: 88

    wooohooo! It's the "I'm more American than thou" rally.

  • Flash Gordon posted at 7:29 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1428

    Looking forward to rubbing gun handles with the homies

  • librtyhuntr posted at 7:13 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    librtyhuntr Posts: 317

    Honor and allegiance sir, which you have neither...

  • voxpop posted at 5:53 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    "regardless of what the sane part of the nation thinks..."

    That would NOT include you truthfullofit1

  • capnbutch posted at 5:35 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    capnbutch Posts: 729

    Sounds like a good idea to make comfortable, gracious dialog work. We succeed by listening.

  • truthful1 posted at 12:42 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    truthful1 Posts: 554

    well, this should be fun....a lot of tinfoil hat paranoids all getting together to breathe each others exhale and then declare it wisdom....regardless of what the sane part of the nation thinks...

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard