Judge: Dump All Guns In U.S. Into The Ocean
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 1 month ago
As the killer stood before him, Judge Kenneth Walker couldn’t stay silent.
“If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean,” the judge told the defendant. “Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them. We could save 33,000 people a year if we didn’t have guns in this country.”
Marcell Lee Daniel Jr. had unleashed 30 bullets during an afternoon drive-by shooting of an innocent man on a North Portland sidewalk. The man, Andrew Coggins Jr., 24, died.
The judge kept going.
“Australia after a major shooting rounded up all the guns, and they haven’t had near the death that we do here in this country,” he said.
“I just saw last night a statistic that 11,000 people in America are murdered each year and another 20,000 commit suicide with guns,” Walker said, referring to figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“They are a scourge of this country and no one should have one as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “There’s no defense to guns. There’s just absolutely no reason to have them. But it is a right of people in this country to own and possess them, and I will not say anything to affect that right.”
Walker, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge for nearly 10 years and a criminal defense attorney before that for 25 years, sentenced Daniel to 17 1/2 years in prison.
The dead man’s mother, Connie Holmes, said she appreciated the judge’s comments.
Okay. You first. Let me know how the police react when you go confiscate their firearms. What? You were going to do this, right? You didn’t expect someone else to do it for you, did you?
But just remember TheAlaskan’s dictum: “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
On September 29, 2016 at 2:48 pm, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:
Black guy shoots another black guy — which is how 90% of black guys die, which is also damn near half the murders in the country — and it’s the guns that are at fault. Gotcha, mister Portlander liberal with a black robe on.
If your fellow travelers at the state and federal level ever succeed in putting teeth into your views, and they start killing or arresting my family and neighbors, I’ll be sure to remember you.
On September 29, 2016 at 3:26 pm, Frank Clarke said:
“People who object to weapons aren’t abolishing violence, they’re begging for rule by brute force, where the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically ‘right.’ Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.”
—L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach.
There will be civil war in this country before there is meaningful civilian disarmament. Some days, talking to the anti-gun loons, I feel like I’m standing with a crowd of eight-year-olds, ankle deep in gasoline, trying to keep them from playing with matches.
On September 29, 2016 at 7:18 pm, Onlooker from Troy said:
Wow, he just decided to go full retard, eh? Well at least we know where he stands.
On September 29, 2016 at 9:10 pm, Fred said:
This is another one of those; arming some of your neighbors to take the arms of your other neighbors idiots. Really all we’ll have in the end is a bunch of dead neighbors. Isn’t that what they are trying to prevent. I’m confused.
On September 30, 2016 at 12:24 pm, Archer said:
It’s what they SAY they are trying to prevent. In reality, most committed anti-gun people: 1. haven’t thought out the consequences; 2. thought it out but came to a fundamentally-flawed conclusion; or 3. scariest of all, thought it out and believe it’s a fair price to “get rid of all the (legal) guns” (not that they won’t continue to blame us when criminals magically avoid being disarmed).
Groups #1 and #2 can be educated and coaxed out of their ignorance. It’s the people in group #3 you have to worry about.
On October 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm, Jack Crabb said:
Archer, I must disagree with your premises – all of them.
I do not believe libturds to be capable of rational, logical thought.
On October 3, 2016 at 5:43 pm, Archer said:
Yes, you’re correct, and thank you for the feedback. My three categories assume a capacity for basic logic and thought. “Libturds,” as you call them, operate based solely on emotion and zealous blind faith in the flawless, benevolent institute of Government.
Thus, you can lump them in with group #3. They’re a subset — call it “#3a” if you like. The only thing missing is the “thought it out” portion. They haven’t “thought it out,” but they DO believe (this is where the “zealous blind faith” part comes in) that the flawless, benevolent American government committing a genocide of 30% of the American population is a fair price if it also means getting rid of all the (legal) icky guns.
Groups #1 and #2 are, by definition, not “libturds”; they are people who can be reasoned with — their commitment can be challenged and shaken. Taken through the logical steps (group #1), or being shown where their logic and/or facts are wrong (group #2) will set them straight.
But “libturds” — along with the rest of group #3 — are a terrifying creature. They’d literally rather see you dead than lawfully armed, and they vote.
On October 4, 2016 at 3:25 pm, Jack Crabb said:
Archer, you and I are on the same page. I usually agree with you. I don’t disagree with you this time, either.
I have just run out of patience for statists. All of them – those on the left (who are legion) and those on the right (which is why I get bothered when Bob “The Copsucker Owens” is mentioned on this blog). Several years ago, I read in a blog that the time for compromise with the evil leftists is past. I wasn’t sure at the time I read it (I really wish I could find that essay.) but I am now positive the blogger was correct. There is really very little common ground between statists and me. I’m just nowhere as pattient and as eloquent as you, my friend.
On October 5, 2016 at 10:44 am, Archer said:
Thank you for the compliment!
I’ve been seeing that sentiment — that the time for compromise with the statist Left is over — more and more in recent years. It’s 100% clear by the evidence that their idea of “compromise” is, “We’ll take what we can now and leave you something, which we’ll be back to take later.” There’s really no compromising with someone who takes that position, but the only alternative is to defeat them. Soundly. Anything less than a total victory means a loss of more of our rights. Death by a thousand cuts.
It saddens me that the political and ideological landscape has deteriorated this far, but I can no longer deny it is what it is. I’d even go a step further and say that not only is the time for compromise over, but it’s well past time to push back. We’ve been on defense for too long, and every inch we lose is more ground they control, but we will not gain anything unless we go on offense. It’s ruthless and not our style (I’d prefer to be left alone, but the statist Left can’t do that), but it’s time they learned their idea of “compromise” swings both ways.
On September 30, 2016 at 4:08 am, Daniel Barger said:
So….this is the best and brightest of the legal ‘profession’ (sic)? Pathetic.
On September 30, 2016 at 9:59 am, Douglas Mortimer said:
Perhaps the judge would like life better in Yemen. I hear it is lovely this time of year, I’ll help him pack his bags.