Drama Queens not welcomed in the gun discussion

| January 1, 2013

Some old turd in DesMoines who should have stayed in retirement instead of thinking that the world needed his idiot opinion on control, named Donald Kaul penned this in the DesMoines Register (sent to us by ROS). He’s upset that everytime he wrote something about gun control, weapons sales went up, so in his purely emotional diatribe, he tells us what the cure should be;

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

Yeah, that’s not emotional in the least. Do you really want the current crop of politicians tinkering with any part of the Constitution, whether it’s the parts you disagree with or not. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the minority of voters from the majority of voters, so do you want to start fiddling with the parts you don’t like, so that I get a chance to get that “right to abortion” thing you found taken out?

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

According to the Black Book of Communism, 100,000,000 people died from Communism. Many leftists doubt the scholarship of that book, but if you look at books they do except, you can find instances of kulaks being shot for hiding a crust of bread beneath floorboards of their hovels. it sounds like Kaul wants to bring back Stalinism and instead of targeting kulaks, he wants to treat legal, law abiding gun owners like Stalin treated his own countrymen. That’s not emotional at all.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

Yeah, that’s completely rational. How about someone drag Kaul behind a pickup until he loses that Stalinist bent of his. After a diatribe like that, I hope the police are checking Kaul’s home for guns, because he doesn’t seem to be grasping reality all that firmly.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 68W58 says:

    I read Kaul’s rant last night, it shows how far off the deep end the grabbers can go when they start to lose the debate. It warms my heart to read the comments from readers taking him to task.

    Anyway-when was membership in the Communist party ever illegal here in the USA? They were subject to some well-deserved scrutiny, but the CPUSA has had an office in New York for a long time. The chairman, or chief commisar or whatever they call him is chaffeured (that part always makes me giggle) around in a Soviet-era Zil limousine. Ignorance and hysteria by Kaul, and where was his editor?

    Right now there is a show on ID about how some gang members would murder random people just so they could earn a tear drop tattoo. They shot 3 women, who they took off the streets in North Carolina in the 1990s at random-no other reason. But sure, who could ever imagine why you would ever need to carry a concealed weapon?

  2. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Want a laugh? The paper requires that commenters be “smart and civil.” To state the obvious, the knucklehead who penned the trash was neither. Funny how that works.

  3. Bam Bam says:

    “The second amendment is poorly written”… It’s part of a document that has been cherished by its own citizens as well as been a beacon for people around the globe for two hundred years, but this ass muncher says its poorly written. Perhaps someone should drag him behind a Chevy until he sees the light on what constitutes literary genius and dog shit…

  4. Hack Stone says:

    If you are dragging someone tied to the back of a Chevy pickup, and you are the only one in the cab of the vehicle, are you still allowed to use the HOV lane?

  5. UpNorth says:

    OK, so which one of our trolls, Joey or Insipid, is writing under a false name?

  6. rb325th says:

    The paper should not have printed such an obvious hate filled and violence promoting rant. They should instead have sought to have kaul committed for a mental health evaluation as he presents as a danger to himself and others.
    Would a conservative get away with penning and publishing a hate filled scree like that, calling to drag behind a truck Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example?

  7. John says:

    Dragging people behind a truck happened here in Texas once, think Jasper Tx. Two of the people that did it were executed in Texas’ Death Row.

  8. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @4. Interesting question but I do believe one must be an occupant of the vehicle to be counted for HOV purposes. My guess is that bouncing, twisting, and tumbling behind a vehicle doesn’t constitute occupancy. But you never know. It really depends on the judge.

  9. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @7. See RULES FOR LIBERAL WRITERS, 16th edition, 2011.

    RULE 17(a) It’s okay to advocate the use of merciless physical cruelty against conservatives and psuedo conservatives if the writer feels that it is necessary to make his or her point in doing so.

  10. BamBam says:

    The real issue of the HOV lane dispute is not so much the occupancy of the vehicle itself, but more so the inevitable drifting (depending on rope/ chain length) of the draggie from said HOV lane into the other lanes. This would then constitute the dragger to be driving a vehicle with only one occupant (unless he brings a friend or colleague to watch the event). But I’m no lawyer…

  11. SteveS says:

    Yet another screed from a member of the peace loving tolerant Liberal camp.
    Why the paper would publish such a hate filled and loony diatribe is a mystery to me. Unless they get paid for each response to the letter.

  12. CAs6 says:

    ” Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot…” That’s a threat of a ‘hate crime.’ Do you want to make the tip to the FBI or should I?

  13. I think Donald Kaul goes a long way toward explaining the thought process (OK, bad choice of words)of those gun-banners. For all their mental frailty, they still recognize that they should not be allowed to own firearms. They project this onto everyone else. They don’t recognize that they are damaged goods, and that normal people are different from them. To them, laws against guns make perfect sense. And laws against them owning guns should make sense to all of us. The problem being, how do you write a law that makes it illegal for people who want to ban guns to own guns. Any thoughts?

  14. Adam says:

    It’s all projection. Most of these anti fun people and violent, selfish and immoral. They know they would do bad things and thus believe that all of us would. Never mind the inconvenient fact that me and everyone I personally know that carries goes out of our way to AVOID and type of confrontation or argument. We know what responsibility comes with having a firearm, they never will. They are incapable of understanding why we want to carry or why we believe we need firearms. I hate Obama and I hate his policies but I would never advocate his death just because I don’t agree with him, yet if these liberals had their way it would be an ethnic cleanse of all non “party members”. Pathetic.

  15. Adam says:

    Most of these anti gun people are…

    Stupid iPhone keyboard.

  16. Ex-PH2 says:

    I like this sentence:

    ‘Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.’

    Swords were the weapons of choice in the Middle Ages. They were a status symbol. Some had bejeweled hilts indicating a family’s history and lineage. The only people with a right to own weapons were the upper classes. Even a yeoman archer didn’t own his equipment. It belonged to his liege lord, like everything else.

    So what Kaul is saying is that only the upper classes should own weapons. His own statement certainly leaves him out of weapon-ownerhip. If we ever did go back to the days of the Middle Ages, Kaul would definitely be at the bottom of that barrel with the other rotten apples.

    I may be taking it out of context, but I can hardly see the Hiltons or Kardashians or even Richard Branson wielding a weapon, not even when I get through laughing myself silly over this.

    If he’s really so very anxious to live under a communist government, let’s send him on a one-way trip to North Korea. They may just send him back, with a note that says ‘Keep him. We don’t want him, either.’

  17. 68W58 says:

    Well, Bruce Jenner is kinda sorta a Kardashian and he could throw a spear-but otherwise EX-PH2’s comment is spot on: lefties see themselves as the natural aristocracy and they know better than the rest of us plebes. They don’t grok why we reject that and so our insistence to keep and bear arms is inexplicable to them. Too bad for them.

  18. Wow, do I get a refund on my NRA life memebership?

  19. LoneStarInfantry says:

    Interestingly enough, I believe this “newspaper” is under the same ownership of the one that published the addresses of gun owners in NY- Garnett. I could be mistaken and will admit I’m going off of memory here. Food for thought.

  20. Ex-PH2 says:

    @68W58, yes, you see having and/or owning a weapon or weapons levels the playing field, which is something that those people really can’t abide, no matter how much they pretend otherwise.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen this much hatred aimed at one side of the political spectrum. Joe McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities investigations were more about his being on a power/ego trip than anything else. But these things all have a backlash effect. The more center-of-the-road people, whether they are voters or politicians, are more likely to take a dim view of the nasty stuff coming from the extreme left than they have before, and are therefore more likely to vote on the conservative side of the fence next time.
    What goes around, comes around, you know.

  21. Old Trooper says:

    @20: not picking nits, but Joe McCarthy was a US Senator, not a congressman and HUAC was in the House, not the Senate. I know that the lefties get that wrong a lot, because they have such a rabid hatred of the man, but just a little info for ya.

  22. The Other Whitey says:

    So the 2nd Amendment is poorly written and confusing?

    “A well-armed and regulated militia being necessary for the common defense, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    So let’s break this down.

    “A well-armed and regulated militia”
    In the context of the time at which this was written (1789), “Militia” was understood to mean every able-bodied male (females were not excluded either, look up Deborah Sampson) capable of fighting to defend his home, his neighbors, and his country against any danger that may arise. Modern federal law specifies that every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 is part of the United States Militia and can be called up as such when needed, and is entitled to monetary compensation (salary)for service rendered. “Well-armed” is self-explanatory. “Regulated” means that in addition to weapons, the militia should be well-trained and have whatever gear is necessary to fight when needed. In modern context, this means stuff like radios, LBV/plate carrier vests, night vision, maps, etc.

    “being necessary for the common defense”
    Pretty easy to understand. It means that the militia is necessary to keep our land and our homes safe from danger. It does not usurp police authority or promote vigilantism or paranoia, rather it establishes the militia (us, that is, armed citizens) as the last line of defense when the military/law enforcement either has failed or is not there to do it for us.

    “the right of the people”
    Did you know this is the only sentence in the whole Bill of Rights that specifically identifies a Right of the People? Sounds pretty clear and uneqiuvocal to me.

    “to keep and bear arms”
    To own guns. To practice with our guns. To be proficient with our guns. To carry our guns–with ammo, no less!

    “shall not be infringed.”
    This means the government does not get to mess with this right. They are constitutionally not allowed to deny law-abiding citizens the right to gun ownership, nor are they allowed to place unreasonable restrictions on it. What is a “reasonable” restriction, you ask? Well, if it prevents a legal gun owner from performing his/her DUTY as a member of the militia (self defense, home defense, stopping a violent crime instead of just watching it happen, or God forbid resist a foreign invasion), then it’s unreasonable.

    This is not my far-right wingnut skewed view of things. Everything I just outlined can be found either in federal law (look it up. I dare you!), in the Federalist Papers (written by several of the Framers explaining their intent and reasons for it), and in personal writings and correspondence of the Framers themselves (Library of Congress rocks!).

    And remember this: George Washington did not lead the US Military we take for granted today. He led a force made up entirely of armed citizens, almost all of whom brought there own weapons, horses, and other necessary equipment. He established a rank structure, gave them a crap-tastic salary, and had Von Steuben give them the best training in the world, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were MILITIAMEN!

  23. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @13. OldCorpsTanker72 says, “The problem being, how do you write a law that makes it illegal for people who want to ban guns to own guns. Any thoughts?”

    You don’t. As I like to say, in the main, the left is voluntarily disarming. Those among them who secretly have carry permits are now scared to death that they will be outted by a newspaper! Very few lefties are financially able to have private bodyguards (e.g., Michael Moore is one who can afford it. By the way his bodyguard reportedly was arrested a few years ago for carrying where he wasn’t licensed to carry:NY). Most lefties are IN and AROUND cities so their hunting excuses won’t work and, besides, hunting is against the lefty code. So they disarm. That’s great news for us. So, we keep plugging to oppose any and every unreasonable but proposed gun law–which amounts to opposing ALL of them. The gun owners are stronger than many folks think. It’s not the NRA the left has to worry about. It’s the regular folks. Not to worry.

  24. Casey says:

    Actually, the Other Whitey, Washington’s Continental Army were regulars, trained by by von Steuben. The battles they fought followed the then-current European model of marching & firing in line, by unit, in uniform, and paid for by the public (i.e. Continental Congress) funds.

    As a general rule the various militia didn’t fight in the conventional manner, and did poorly by those standards. They did prove useful as scouts & skirmishers.

  25. NHSparky says:

    They may just send him back, with a note that says ‘Keep him. We don’t want him, either.’

    Kinda like Piers Morgan?

    Seriously, this is where we know they don’t have reality, facts, or the law on their sides. They’re banging the table, but slowly, people are beginning to realize that the lefties are a bunch of histrionic drama queens who don’t give a shit for YOUR safety, only theirs, and then only the APPEARANCE of such, when in reality they’re more vulnerable than ever.

  26. USMCE8Ret says:

    What bothers me most about ideas from people like Kaul is “mission creep”. Take seat belts for example. First, many years ago, LEO’s would write tickets for offenses relating to operating a car, with seatbelt offenses being secondary. Then, they were allowed to write tickets SOLELY on not wearing seat belts. It wasn’t because they cared so much about safety, but it was a mechanism for some communities to increase $$$ from traffic violations. If something as simple as seat belts can be taken out of context, I only wonder how soon they would eventually try to repreal other amendments to the Bill of Rights? I just sense it as a possible domino effect and not likely to actually happen, but there are people out there who will try to find a way to strip us of our freedoms little by little.

  27. Zhytamyr says:

    Update your range cards- it very well might get interesting

  28. Drama says:

    The 2A is really written in the least confusing way possible I don’t get how they can believe this crap.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    We have the statement of a militia, the reason for it, and what it is to be made of, and finally that it is not be removed hence the reason for it its need in the first place.

  29. Just an Old Dog says:

    Funny that because of the violent murder of innocents by a maniac this old buzzard calls for the murder of millions of law abiding Americans and torture/execution of two elected officials as a “solution”.

  30. Garrysr says:

    Okay, I live in Des Moines, and Kaul moved away years ago. To D.C.. I think that helps to explain him a bit. And, he now resides in Michigan. Which is fine, as many of us here don’t want him. His high point in life was helping to start RAGBRAI, the yearly bike ride across IA. He has gone waaay downhill since then. He just started writing again after a heart attack, and while he was a nut before, I think he was damaged in the process.
    And yes, the Register is another fine rag from the Gannett group of bird cage liners.
    On behalf of Iowans everywhere- Sorry!