« Flames out of the Side of My Head: Guantanamo and Torture Plea Agreements | Main | an Unamuno (very early) Friday open thread »

July 26, 2012

Comments

Head axes -- sorry, no can do.

Rocket launchers: we may be good to go on that.

From inside the originalist mind of a guy whose given name is "Justice".

Welp, rocket launchers will make for a quicker job of taking out the terror state neocons when the time comes than will the head-ax.

Constitutional originalism: for when paranoid delusions will not suffice.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/dumb-justice.html

I don't think many people have Haas machining centers in their garage, Brett.

It may very well be that you can build the tools to make rifle barrels with just a lathe and a Bridgeport Mill, Brett. I'd just like to see it, is all. I'd like to see it done by someone of, say, your knowledge of machine tools, as opposed to the aforementioned gunsmith with decades of experience.

Not saying it cannot be done. Just wondering if there's more than a handful or two of people in the US that could pull it off.

"Common gun controler trope, that the whole 2nd amendment thing is driven by the firearms industry, with the NRA an industry front."

Huh, I thought the real gun biz was driven by the mil/industrial complex. Nobel peace prize winner - and lib light worker hero - BHO has committed the equivalent of the theater shooting every other day for the past 4 years. What? No lib outrage? Dead wogs are just dead wogs. What are they worth? A 5th of an American human? a third at best? Probably more like a 25th of a human based on the lib outrage scale. Pathetic.

"Could I vote for him, considering his enthusiasm for Israel's way of doing things."

Seriously? The zionist are seaking to commence WW3 by atacking Iran. They (the Zionists, not Iran) have nukes. Gun control "yes", but wmd control, "no" as long as it's BHO or zionists? fascinating thought processes.

Libs want to flap their girly jaws about small arms and their occasional misuse once again (yawn) just because a bunch of people with a violence fetish watching their violence porn in the form of some silly batman movie actually encountered the real thing and, meanwhile, their prez and his jewish buddies are killing brown kids and anyone with a turban all over the world with drone attacks, artillary, airstrikes, etc, threatening millions with nuclear weapons and preemptive war to include said nuclear weapons.

Yeah. the gov't sure is the right entity to be in possession of the real weapons. They sure have demonstrated morality and responsibility in owning and using them. Not like us stupid People.

How many Iraqis were killed due to our invasion? And the invasion, it seemed to me, was sold on a paranoid mantra. Why overloook that when talking about guns? Why trust the gov't that sold you the line to have the guns instead of you?

Motes and beams.....sheeeeeeeeeeit. The splinter is gun owning US citizens. the f'ing giant red wood forest is the US gov't and it's close "allies".

Yes, the penultimate lib wet dream. Promise to keep me safe and pain free and I surrender my freedom and ability to resist your will. I will be your zombie bitch.

The ultimate lib wet dream is to lie back in a govt supplied protective plastic bubble with a govt feeding tube and gov't provided sensory stimulation, matrix style.

I am intrigued by your thoughts and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I dunno, black/balckhawk7's 2 comments seem to focus on what the boy scouts referred to as nocturnal emissions. A big problem around puberty, iirc. I leave others to draw what conclusions they may.

whew. that was a pretty thorough airing of grievances, balckhawk7.

it must be Festivus in July!

I wanted to make a "balckhawk or tugboat?" joke but couldn't really put it together.

That's almost certainly av3di5, right?

Just so we're straight here (in av3di5's sense of beating the crap out of lesbians in gang showers), I need a 20-minute resting period between my penultimate lib wet dreams and my ultimate lib wet dreams, and even then I require a running start.

YMMV.

I suspect Balckhawk 7 received a Boy Scout merit badge for the most frequent nocturnal emissions achieved during broad daylight.

Unfortunately, he interrupted the atlatl whittling competition with his private enthusiasms, but he yelled in quick succession, alternating flapping his tough-guy lips and gripping his tongue firmly between same in furious concentration, "I love me some Jamboree!","J'ou love Jamboree?" Wog not what your country can j'ou for you, but just keep Jamboree coming!", so they humored him with a merit badge, hoping he was a drama queen, not a serial killer.

Just in case, though, I don't want to take Brett's guns, but I wouldn't mind seeing the ATF pay the guy a visit to kind of prize open those fascinating thought processes.

"pay the guy a visit"

Not Brett, but Balckhawk7.

Stop typing, Brett. False alarm.

Could fit, but I don't remember our old, banned friend having so much of a problem with teh speling.

I'm unclear as to what Blackhawk7 said that would constitute any kind of probable cause for illegal activity. In the absence of which a visit from the BATF based on speech would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

So, let's not joke about having the government bust in on people who say things you don't like.

O.K.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_07/guns_trump_everything038918.php

"Doctor: How'd that cantaloupe sustain such brain damage?

Dan Burton: That's not a cantaloupe, that's Vince Foster's head.

Doctor: Those look like bullet wounds. Do you keep firearms in the home?

Dan Burton (Florida state law enforcement, awaiting the high sign from Burton, breaks down the doctor's office door, cuffs the doctor, and slips a black hood over his head).: That'll teach you to ask about guns, you melon head."

Brett, if we ever make a movie about our exchanges, such as they are, at OBWI, I hope Margaret Dumont is available to play you.

This guy is my favorite billionaire:

http://nymag.com/news/business/themoney/jeff-greene-2012-8/

Credit Balloon Juice via Krugman.

What's he doing on this gun thread?

Well, besides the fact that EVERYTHING is on this thread, he makes a point about who, given current socioeconomic trends, will have the most weapons in the U.S. in a few years and what they might choose to do with them, if we keep doing what we're doing.

Nothing funny there. Not a joke in sight, to keep with the apparently revised posting rules.

I did some extrapolation. That still permitted?

Speaking of the funny papers, one of Mitt Romney's sidemen told a good one yesterday in Israel: "Kiss my a#s! This is a sacred site. Have some respect!"

I don't know if he added that plenty of Iranian sacred sites should be disrespected via carpet bombing, but a person can only throw so many lit matches into a gas tank on one trip.

There is something about private citizen Mitt Romney on this foreign junket that reminds me of Jane Fonda, give or take a nuclear weapon or two.


av3di5? I'm guessing yes on that.

So, let's not joke about having the government bust in on people who say things you don't like.

You're cute when you're being all self-riteous, Brett. Let's not joke at all, being the Masters of the Universe that we are. Who knows what might happen?

Has anyone seen my gh?

Scalia thinks there's a case to be made for the right for people to carry shoulder-fired rocket launchers.

ah cleek, poor little lib with so many unexamined priors.

The unescapable question - though I'm sure you and your ilk will continue to try to avoid it - is why you trust a gov't to have these weapons, but not the people. A better question is why you trust your gov't at all considering you all know that it has lied to you in the most egregious manner repeatedly and that it has steadily eroded civil liberties in favor of a militarized local police establishment and an increasingly fascist federal system. Yet still you look to your gov't for safety and comfort.


Another situation that I find revealing is that so many libs think this whole "Arab Spring" party is so wonderful, while avoiding some painfully obvious facts concerning the revolutions, most salient to the discussion here being that the people overthrowing their gov'ts are armed with assualt rifles, rpg.s, etc. - I won't digress into the fact that the rebels are a bunch of islamic radicals that hate the US. That's a different topic for a different day.

Why is it good for the wogs to have these weapons and use them to such ends, but not for us?

Could cowardice have something to do with it?

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson

2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Why is it good for the wogs to have these weapons and use them to such ends, but not for us?

This is a warning. Continued colorful vocabulary will result in being banned.

17a. Boating in Wisconsin would never be half the fun without alcohol.

18. Seventeen aphorisms do not a white man make.

19. For whom the gay married wog tolls, he tolls for the membership rules of the Boy Scouts.

I can't help but notice that most of those quotes are without attribution...

But to answer the question that prompted LJ's ire, to suggest that Americans might be entitled to the means of revolt would be to suggest that American's government might be appropriate to revolt against. Which is to say that Americans might be justified in revolting against liberals.

Obviously inadmissible.

LJ, I'd barely characterize that as pastel. Probably not so much intended as insult as faux British. But I suppose if you want to get away with using such terms here, you need to avoid using them in their proper context.

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson

"Those who plow their slave women shall have their oats sowed by tipsy, disgruntled wives.

"Those who spill their seed by the hand of Onan shall reap the whirlwind but spare their women much ikkiness, yet their fields shall be confiscated by the Soil Conservation service for bad hygiene."

"Spare not thy rod, but keep it sheathed because bad boys don't get dessert despite their eager flogging."

"Thou may depose by violence the liberal in front of thee, but beware the libertarian behind who seeks thy ample parking."

If we're playing fast and loose with the categories, I could easily make the argument that liberals are far more aware of and likely to make a stink over our government's lies and egregious use of weaponry, be it by the military or police. The same goes for the prison-industrial complex. If anything, views over such are the common territory between most liberals and libertarians. Accusing liberals of excessive trust in government in these areas seems a bit silly when there are plenty of military-worshipping, law-and-order conservatives who need to be challenged over their far more excessive trust of police and military power. What all of this has to do with gun control is questionable, fantasies of an armed revolt notwithstanding.

Well, I'd say that's what I didn't observe during the Waco standoff. Indeed, I see a lot of liberals who still swallow the government's line on what went down there, hook, line, and sinker.

And when the subject of armed revolt comes up, I frequently see, from liberals, fantasies of government immolation of conservatives.

To the usual suspects:

"Thou may thinketh thou haveth the lasthe laugheth, but thy lithsp belieth thy failure to getteth up pretty early in the morning to fool the bird who hath dewormed thee."

This place is beginning to read like the tortured English phraseology on the House Rules card posted on each door of a cheap Taiwanese hotel, not that it isn't entertaining.

The corn wasn't knee high in July this year, but the scything of the human crop shall sustain the bitter.

This time, just this morning, dead and wounded in a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, all no doubt Others mistaken for other Others by the usual suspects who have ladled out hate by the drum clip and by whatever measurement of bandwidth we like:


"According to an initial report from ABC, a witness to the shooting informed law enforcement that the shooter was a “white male, bald, with a heavy build.”

Joe the Plumber becomes Willie Horton in future political ads. If the profile fits ....

If I were Joe, I'd seek a makeover.

For the record, I fantasize about immolation (I'd contract it out to the private sector, just to be bi-partisan and save hard-earned tax dollars) of various John Birch, Ayn Rand and confederate grifting holy-roller types, too numerous anymore to mention, who have stolen, not without being invited to do so, the mantle of true "conservatives" and now infest the Republican Party to the disgust of the remaining, but oddly silent, for the most part, good conservatives everywhere who are the victims of the ongoing purification purge of this ... armed, vomiting, death-loving .... thing ... called the Republican Party.

To express my fantasies, I visit any number of right-wing websites and publications and mimic their hate rhetoric regarding their simple plans for dealing with the Other (an endlessly burgeoning population it seems, for the dear victimized white, male, bald guys with heavy builds, though the right wing in this country has fashioned a rather ecumenical gathering of a*sholes and jagoffs of every creed, color and gender, I must observe) in this world, add my own vaudevillian squirting lapel flower touches to the mix, and ipso fatso, there you have it.

Brett, in case you are wondering about my personal opinions, you are not the problem, though certainly we disagree on much.

But the problem, including the elected problem haters who have made a Serbia of our airwaves, the cybertubes, and the very halls of so-called representation in this country, are going to be dealt with.

How do they want it?

The First .. or the Second Amendment?

My gig is the first, but you sometimes argue the second, it would seem.

Wanna switch?

I want the government completely disarmed.

How about you?

Brett, the question did not provoke my ire (as I said, you have absolutely no idea what my stance is on this) it was the vocabulary used. Had that word not been used, I wouldn't have said anything.

Well, shucks, someone thought to diagram my 3:35 pm comment:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/two-long-reads-for-sunday-afternoon.html

Thanks, Count. The link at your URL, the one that goes into great detail on the four types, has me thoroughly depressed.

You see, after my libertarian phase came my centrist phase, so I realized, along with the despair for this country's (probably the world's) future, some degree of self-loathing over my one-time need for the "both sides do it" and "reasonable people can disagree" narratives.

I should just hit myself in the head with a hammer and join the Tea Party. I'd probably be happier that way.

Conservatives or libs, what the difference? Both agendas result in the expansion of an oppressive federal system and, more specifically germane to the discussion here, both seek, and have achieved, expanded police powers and diminished civil rights.

It all reminds me of disfunctional relationships and the people that seem helplessly prone to becoming entrapped in them. The conservatives are the obvious abusive authoritarian personalities and the libs are the victim types that keep engaging, nay running into the arms of, abusers in relationships hoping that the abuser will change or saying, "Yes, but he really didn't mean it".

No. That's not quite right. The relationship between libs and gov't is more like mafia wives (libs being the wives of course). Whereas conservatives are more like the dons and capos.

All the bickering isn't about whether or not the family 'business' is wrong or immoral. It's more about how to do the shake down and how the shake down loot will be allocated. And how to enforce.

"...it was the vocabulary used." Ah yes, sigh, always an excuse to dodge the substance and to reinforce some anti 1st amendment erosion. "Wog" is a reference to an era and a cultural outlook and it was intended to add nuance to the point. I think the attitude is alive and well in the "enlightened' liberal community. Why is that violent armed revolution is viewed as positive when brown skinned third worlders engage in it, but primitive and retarded if a white skinned first worlder suggests it in his country? It's not because you think of the third worlder as someone inferior? Come on.

All you gun hating libs out there, I'd really like an answer to this. What if some POTUS declared some kind of emergency under one of the laws in place since 9/11, called for martial law and suspended elections and civil rights indefintely as ong as the emergency - in this case a war - lasts (and we know that we are told we are enaged in multi generational war with lib light Obama perpetuating the concept).

Some of your neighbors are arrested and disappeared because they are "suspected terrorists".

What would you do?

Too far fetched? Doesn't deserve an answer? BS. Happens all over the world and every govt in history has used these tactics; including our own to some extent.

blackhawk7, let me make this clear. If you don't have the linguistic chops to "reference to an era and a cultural outlook and it was intended to add nuance to the point", without using a work like wog, you aren't welcome here. As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it to you to try and figure out that Oak Creek and Aleppo are two different places.

Although I have a certain amount of sympathy with the gun-owner POV in the battle for rhetorical elbow room that has become the gun-control debate, I think balckhawk7's assumptions of bad faith on the part of pretty much everyone who disagrees with him is counter to posting rules, and as LJ has served him with warning, we will wait and see before banning.

However, this:

why you trust a gov't to have these weapons, but not the people.

is just Not Thinking It Through. There are lots and LOTS of weapons that we permit the government to have and not the people. Follows is a short list:

*A-10, B-1, B-2, B-52, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, Cobra and Apache and Kiowa Warrior helicopters, etc, armed with various cannons, bombs both smart and otherwise, air to surface missiles, air to air missiles, etc. This includes a whole lot of devices like FAE bombs and WCMD; missiles like Maverick and Hellfire and HARM.

*Pretty much anything involving fissionables, which also includes all fusion weapons.

*M-1 Abrams, towed and self-propelled artillery and their ammunition load-outs

*Man-launched anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles

*Man-portable mortars and their ammunitions

*Vehicle-mounted missile systems such as (but not limited to) MLRS, PAC-3, JTACMS and THAAD.

*With rare exceptions: all automatic-fire weapons ranging from shoulder-fired to vehicle-mounted heavy machine guns.

There is probably a lot more that I missed, but the horse is still dead no matter how much more vigorously I beat on it.

All that aside, I (I am repeating myself, here) think any attempts to ban "assault weapons" will be doomed to repeat past efforts to ban "assault weapons". I will neatly tie up the description of said failure with: no one knows what an assault weapon is.

some anti 1st amendment erosion

Someone doesn't understand what the 1st amendment does. Probably less lecturing and more thinking is called for, here.

FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH I AM ALLOWED TO COME INTO YOUR LIVING ROOM AND SAY WHATEVER I WANT AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME! FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS SO!

This seems a strange quibble coming from people who seem to think the 14th amendment, (No State... any State...) applies to the private sector. ;)

Anyway, looking at that graph of the good Doctor's, I got to thinking: That's a graph of the percentage of "households" that own guns. But, households don't own guns, people do. When my first wife divorced me, and I kept the guns, (As I'd owned them before I met her!) the percentage of households owning guns declined slightly, while the number of people owning guns changed not at all.

So, look at http://www.marketingcharts.com/topics/demographics/census-data-average-us-household-size-declines-to-26-10679/census-bureau-households-by-type-1970-2007jpg/>this graph.

Wow, it's a miracle! The percentage of non-single households has declined by almost the exact same percentage as households owning guns! You could explain the entire decline by gun owners getting divorced/not marrying.

Not that I think that's an accurate explanation. More to the point, how honest do you think paranoids are when they're asked by a pollster if they own guns?

And when the subject of armed revolt comes up, I frequently see, from liberals, fantasies of government immolation of conservatives.

I don't think anybody fantasizes about it, as opposed to being fairly certain of what the inevitable result will be. Perhaps people should have heeded Washington's warnings about standing armies and Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex, huh?

But, households don't own guns, people do.

in a household like mine, where my wife and i share all finances, it would be incorrect to say that I own anything - we own everything (and too much of everything, IMO). and since we have no children, we = the household. so, our household would own our guns (if we had any).

The unescapable question - though I'm sure you and your ilk will continue to try to avoid it - is why you trust a gov't to have these weapons, but not the people.

August 05, 2012 at 12:28 AM: error C2271: "these weapons" : unspecified referent.

==== Build : 0 succeeded, 1 failed ====

"As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it to you to try and figure out that Oak Creek and Aleppo are two different places."

Gee. I tried and I can't really see how they are different, except by shades of degree, where govt oppression versus freedom are concerned. And those shades can change and blur. But then I'm just a politically incorrect moron.

I'm sure that one of the people here so smart and so surfeit of language skills (as yourself) can readily explain. Please enlighten me.

"these weapons" : unspecified referent."

Ok. Clarification: Any weapon the govt has.

yes. This includes tanks, jets, aircraft carriers.............

Let's face it, the avg Joe cannot afford to purchase, let alone maintain and provide a crew for the larger and more complex weapons systems. If one could, then it would be, necessarily, something akin to a proper militia. So there really isn't much to worry about. The whole argument of citizens not owning cruise missiles is just a lib gambit to demonstrate that restrictions are necessary and to then push those restrictions all the way down to handguns and rifles with high capacity magazines.

That said, there *are* US private citizens that do own a wide range of small arms to include not only full automatic military rifles, but also various anti-tank rockets, attack helo.s, etc Most of these citizens are able to do so because they are a)wealthy and b) have govt connections. c) sometimes call themselves 'contractors" (whatever that means).

So the restrictions are arbitrary and not equally applied.

The whole argument of citizens not owning cruise missiles is just a lib gambit to demonstrate that restrictions are necessary and to then push those restrictions all the way down to handguns and rifles with high capacity magazines.

How is it a "lib gambit" to demonstrate that we're arguing over where the line should be rather than whether or not there should be one? It seems to me a matter of basic logic, only necessary because of the lack thereof on the part of some of the people opposed to (existing, further, or any) gun control.

So the restrictions are arbitrary and not equally applied.

Do you suppose anyone here either denies this or thinks it's okay? Does noting this serve to support or oppose gun control?

The whole argument of citizens not owning cruise missiles is just a lib gambit to demonstrate that restrictions are necessary and to then push those restrictions all the way down to handguns and rifles with high capacity magazines.

of course it is. it's all part of our grand, multi-generational, plot to take away your fncking guns - as is organizing bi-weekly mass-murders in order to nudge public sentiment ever-so-slowly into our favor. sadly for us, you've uncovered the truth and now all our machinations are for naught.

alas.

so, fellow libs, what's next? the imposition of Sharia law, or the imposition of the Gay Agenda?

I'm not expert on velvet revolutions, but I have the vague impression that the Czechs, the Egyptians and the people of India suuccessfully pulled off regime changes without use of or access to much in the way of firearms. I kind of think that if they had used weapons their revolutions would have ended in failure and bloodbaths.

Libya, on the other hand, had weapons and trained fighters on both sides.


The Russian revolution against the czar reached a critical tipping point when the trained armed government forces joined the revolution. I don't think the untrained revolutionairies could have succeeded even with weapons without the help of the regular army.

Of course in our revolution onoy the openning slavos were carried out by ordinary fglks grabbing the family firearm. (And even the Lexington action had trained militia people involved). Most of the war was fought by people who had some training and were functioning as an army. In addition we had the advantage of knowing the territory, of being the defenders rather than the attackers (who had to travel an enormous distance and had to supplement their troops with mercenaries).

So this idea that ordinary people can balance the power of government by arming themselves is pretty naive.

I think it is a better plan to balance the power of the ordiary person against the power of the government by making sure that ordinary people aren't prevented by voter supression actions from voting, aren't prevented from working together to get better wages by anti-union legislation, and aren't denied freedom to make their on personal decisions by legislators who want to micro manage other people's sex lives.

If fact it seems really ironic to me that so many "anti-government" people vote for Republicans who have the worst record for decades of using power or abusing it agsinst the rights and interests of ordinary people. Wouldn't it be easier to just stop voting for Republicans than to arm yourself to fight back against them, Blackhawk?

so, fellow libs, what's next? the imposition of Sharia law, or the imposition of the Gay Agenda?

It just kind of stinks that we can't do both. Crap!

Can we just skip ahead to the FEMA prison camps?

Laura, On the one hand you want to rely on the power of the vote to maintain freedom and equality. How's that been working out? What if the vote doesn't work any more? You sort of ackowledge this scenario by pointing out the irony of small govt types voting Republican (BTW I agree with your sense of irony on that point and I do not vote Rep.) That said, what is the other choice? Dem? They are big gov't too. That is my point. No matter who you vote for the result is bigger govt and decreased respect for civil liberties, endless war, economic screwing of the 99%, etc, etc. This has been the trend for the past several decades.

Your understanding of "velvet" revolutions is not complete. There are many other variables involved. For example, re; India, the British were weary of maintaining empire. That is why Ghandi's method worked.

"How is it a "lib gambit" to demonstrate that we're arguing over where the line should be rather than whether or not there should be one?"

Because it seeks to obtain agreement that there should be a line drawn. From there it is merely a matter of pushing the line farther down to include just about everything anyone could use for self defense.

Are you aware that in New York city it is a class A misdemeanor, punishible by a year in prison, to possess things like sling shots and karate numchucks? Yes, people, have actually been prosecuted for this, simple possession, even though they weren't using these silly instruments to attempt to commit a crime. So don't tell me it isn't some lib agenda to eliminate all guns. Mayor Bloomberg has been ranting and raving all over the media about how America needs to follow his example. Libs, like Bloomberg, want all killing power in the hands of gov't. And how has that worked out? Hmmmm, innocent people still get shot, knifed, raped, etc by violent criminals in NYC. yes sireeeee, a model of gun control policy in action.

"Can we just skip ahead to the FEMA prison camps?"

Well, there is the Patriot Act and there is still GITMO and extraordinary rendition...........how much farther does the gov't have to go before you start to become concerned?

Libs, like Bloomberg, want all killing power in the hands of gov't.

exactly! it's why the death penalty and an ever-expanding military are loved by all liberals.

Cleek, the point remains: Break households apart, if only one person in the household was ever interested in the guns, then the percentage of households owning guns drops, without any actual change in ownership.

And, legally, guns have to be purchased by specific people. They may end up marital property in reality, but legally individuals own them.

In point of fact, I wouldn't be shocked if the actual rate of gun ownership had declined a bit from the 70's. A great deal of the gun control movement's effort has been put into petty harassement, aimed at discouraging the next generation from becoming gun owners in the first place. With the notion that, if they could just push rates of gun ownership low enough, even 100% mobilization of gun owners would not be enough. It's got to have had SOME effect on ownership rates.

My point here is just that the stats are very questionable. Aside from the whole households vs individuals issue, you've got the notion that people who are supposedly buying guns out of "paranoia" are accurately reporting their ownership. I suspect actual ownership rates of firearms are substantially higher than any official figures would indicate, and nobody knows what the real numbers are.

"Are you aware that in New York city it is a class A misdemeanor, punishible by a year in prison, to possess...sling shots..."
Depends...

http://www.guncite.com/journals/krealsym.html

Brett, you would appreciate the linked article. It shoots holes in the anti-gun crowd's arguments and supports some of the thoughts you have been sharing concerning households and gun ownership #s.

CharlesWT, thanks, Interesting. Actually these are not just illegal in NYC, but in all of NYS. But yeah, sure, we shouldn't be worried that the govt wants to confinscate our guns.

Balckhawk has somehow managed to evade, without even a point-molecule adhering

Because it seeks to obtain agreement that there should be a line drawn.

I thought that was obvious.

From there it is merely a matter of pushing the line farther down to include just about everything anyone could use for self defense.

Except that very few people actually want to do that. If they do, then go ahead and argue against that. I'll help.

Well, there is the Patriot Act and there is still GITMO and extraordinary rendition...........how much farther does the gov't have to go before you start to become concerned?

Not at all. Those things already concern me (and lots of other liberals, AFAICT), even if I don't have any immediate reason to fear FEMA prison camps.

because slingshots are guns?

(that was meant for BH7's 01:53 PM)

"Not at all. Those things already concern me (and lots of other liberals, AFAICT), even if I don't have any immediate reason to fear FEMA prison camps."

They worry you. Good. They should.

So the question then is what you are willing to do about it and what you would be willing to do about it if things got worse, worse meaning you yourself and/or people you care about actually became materially threatened by an increase in that sort of fascism. Would you consider armed resistance/revolt? if the answer is "yes", then how would you obtain weapons that would at least give you a fighting chance if all such weapons were prohibited by law?

Clearly, for personal protection under current national circumstances, a handgun - probably even just a six shot revolver - is sufficient. However, there are large swaths of the populated portion of this country (e.g. NYC) where possessing a handgun is a felony if one does not have the proper permit fir that jurisdiction. A number of individuals traveling to NYC have been arrested for simply possessing a handgun and they could not have obtained a permit because they are not NY residents and because, at least in NYC it is virtually impossible to obtain a permit unless one is wealthy and well connected. There are several other cities - even states - that have similar laws and regulations. So, yes, more than "very few people want to do that" - "that" being eliminate the ability of an individual to exercise his/her primary right to self defense (again, to the ludicrous extent of making some kinds of slingshots illegal).

Returning to the idea of an armed populace being a safeguard against tyranny, I've read the thread here. Just about everyone except brett wants at least high capacity rifles eliminated.

avedis wrote?:

"A number of individuals traveling to NYC have been arrested for simply possessing a handgun and they could not have obtained a permit because they are not NY residents and because, at least in NYC it is virtually impossible to obtain a permit unless one is wealthy and well connected."

That sounds familiar. Phil's hunch was correct.

Not that a feeding isn't in order.

Alright, so New York City has been disarmed, even to the extent that you can't (ostensibly) stand up in a theater and throw your 32 oz soda indiscrimnately at the audience mid-feature, though if I were a New Yorker, I'd be packing 32 ounces in both hands for when it goes down, either a madman tossing Pepsi at me or the Federal Government doing a sweep of Manhatten and the outer boroughs and GITMOizing the entire town from Harlem to Soho, from the Brooklyn Bridge to the Holland Tunnel.

Say, a very large band of liberals want to nip the Patriot Act and GITMO in the bud (while we're at it, I want universal healthcare and a high marginal tax rate of 39.5%, since we're going to the trouble, not that I wouldn't f&cking like to), via this armed revolt we are theorizing about at OBWI for all FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security fascists to read and record for determining black helicopter coordinates and such.

Welp, it occurs to me that the most fascist gunned-up environs and populations in this Serbia of Michelle malkin's mind we call the U.S. -- Arizona, vast stretches of Texas, give or take a reasonable conservative or two, most every hamlet of southern hospitality beneath the Mason-Dixon, and the Republican toilets in the House of Representatives are the very places that just LOVE then some GITMO, the f*cking murderous fascist vermin.

In fact, they seem to think GITMO is too pale and weak for real fascists and want to hurry our descent along, given their continued armed and arson assault on the Other, not those Others, the other Others, not that the former Others won't be thrown into the pit still breathing as well by the Republican Party platform.

In fact, were the liberal 32-oz brigades from New York City (say it like they do in the salsa commercial) to descend on D.C. and convince the Obama Administration at Skittles-point to shut down GITMO and for good measure disarm the FBI, the ATF, and a good part of the Armed Forces, which after all will be the instruments of fascist fever dreams should it come to that, I'd expect full-scale armed, bloody revolution from the fascist Confederate viper-nests I just listed.

A good part of the fascist Cuban community of Florida, who have been dying to break into Democratic headquarters again after 40 years of laying low, would join the Wyoming Cheney fusiliers as they murdered Obama, his wife, and his children.

Maybe the New Yorkers could attach a super-soaker drum clip to their 32-oz sodas to even up the odds.

Civil War.


Blackhawk,
While, as slarti noted, you are within the posting rules, it is generally accepted here that one references specific things actual people say rather than assigning opinions to large swathes of people. Your repeated invocations of 'libs' bumps into this. For example, I'm a 'lib', but I am positive that you have no idea what my position on gun control or on Arab Spring is. So if you want to take issue with some point, I strongly recommend that you ideally quote or at least reference what other people have said. Your attention to that point is appreciated.

As for your request for my help in explaining, first, I can tell you that you are using surfeit incorrectly: it is either a noun or a verb, bur you are trying to use it as an adjective with a meaning of 'excessively full' or something similar. As I tell my students, don't just use a word that you aren't sure of the meaning, find some sentences where it is used. You should have written 'with a surfeit of language skills' which would have gotten across your meaning.

My linguistic skills are better than average, I think, but if you really believe that you "can't really see how they are different, except by shades of degree, where govt oppression versus freedom are concerned.", no amount of linguistic skill on my part can explain it to you in a way you can understand. And if you really believe that, then I could assert that there is only a degree of difference between you and Wade Michael Page and you would presumably agree, unless there is something that prevents the scale from moving in that direction but allows you to claim that a civil war is the same as a white supremacist shooter killing 7 at a Sikh temple. If you could explain why that is the case, it would be interesting to read.

So the question then is what you are willing to do about it and what you would be willing to do about it if things got worse, worse meaning you yourself and/or people you care about actually became materially threatened by an increase in that sort of fascism.

When the day comes that the ATF rappels into my yard, searching out my arsenal, I will kick my ass for not buying into this quacamole. But, really, is this on the horizon? Sure, there are some who would round up all handguns and require that rifles and shotguns be registered with the local police and ownership licensed (in a country of 300,000,000, you expect a diversity of views--pooping in one's pants every time an outlier comes along will play hell with the wardrobe). And yes, Bloomberg doesn't seem to get the 2nd Amendment. So, here's my question: why isn't the NRA finding a test case to take up to the SCOTUS? That's the easy fix for Bloomberg & Co. Here's my paranoid take on why the NRA won't fight that fight: they need Bloomberg in the worst kind of way. He's doing their job for them, scaring the crap out of Ave-Hawk and his buds and getting them to send in the wampum.

What the hell, if we're talking creeping fascism, why does the State of Ohio (my birth state, not that it couldn't use some carpet bombing now and again) want to let members of the military vote three days early, but allow no other American citizen the privilege?

Isn't that the way they do things in Pakistan and various Ollie North murderous fiefdoms in Central America, not to mention I think Mussolini's uniformed cadres cut in line first too, when they weren't turning in Italian Jews to Governor Kasich?

Word has it that Hugo Chavez and Kasich are planning a military takeover of the entire Western Hemisphere.

See, when I see guys in fatigues securing more access to the voting franchise than I possess, I suddenly can't tell the difference between them and the guys in fatigues who shoot the joint up on a steady bi-weekly schedule in Republican NRA-land.

Both types seem to be sponsered and armed to the teeth by the alien murderous Republican Party.

Obama is trying to right that wrong, but natch, HE'S the fascist, if you believe the howling bug-filth that somehow stumble around wearing the rotting weekend at Bernie's corpse of the former Party of Lincoln ... yeah, Lincoln, who would relocate the so-called Republican Convention to Atlanta and then would say adios to the entire bunch and burn Atlanta to the ground one more time, because the first time didn't take, could he arise for a moment from the bullet John Erick Erickson Wilkes Booth put in the back of his head ... Obama's the fascist for wanting the troops back in their barracks until they are summoned to show up at the polls in street clothes by the rest of the citizenry?

Together, at the same time, like it should be in this idea called America.


You know, way back when, little old ladies in wheel chairs got to vote absentee, because they'd have trouble getting to the polls, and strapping young men like me were expected to show up in person. And I never took umbrage at this, because I understood they were under a handicap I wasn't under, and the absentee ballot was just to make up for this.

Now soldiers posted far from home get to vote a bit earlier than other people, because the absentee ballot might take a couple of weeks to make it to their distant location and back. And you're taking umbrage at this because?

This has nothing to do with absentee voting Brett - if the soldiers are posted "far from home" then voting, in person, 3 days early will probably be next to nothing, "Ohio has what is called “no fault” absentee. Active duty military (or any other Ohio resident) may vote absentee as they would in any other year." (Kay, Balloon-Juice).

Yes, this has nothing to do with absentee voting, it has to do with in-person early voting, which Ohio instituted after the debacle of 2008, when polling places were absolutely overwhelmed on Election Day.

Until this year, ALL registered Ohio voters could vote early, in person, at their county Board of Elections, up to three days before Election Day.

Republicans in Ohio got the law changed so that the cutoff for everyone else to vote early, in person, is a week before the election; except for military personnel, who can still do it up to three days before.

This is so clearly an equal-protection violation that it's unsurprising that Mitt Romney and the permanently-outraged 27%-ers are lying about it.

There are a lot of people concerned about NYC gun laws. It is, afterall, a city of several million people. More than one person is out there talking about it.

"When the day comes that the ATF rappels into my yard, searching out my arsenal, I will kick my ass for not buying into this quacamole."

Fair enough. That's what I figured, the attitude seems to be something along the lines of, "I got my slice of the pie so I'm happy enough to not make waves and, besides, It can't happen here; or maybe it can, but I'm too happy with my pie to worry about it."

By the time they're roping in, busting your door down, etc it's too late, as you know. You're just gambling that it won't happen, at least not to you.

"why isn't the NRA finding a test case to take up to the SCOTUS?"

Ah, but they are. They have challenged gun laws in several cities/states and have enjoyed some victories. They are now using those precedents to challenge NY laws. Look it up. It's right there.

"..pooping in one's pants every time an outlier comes along will play hell with the wardrobe)"

I argue that the volume of anti-gun rhetoric and the number of actual restrictive and, hopefully, soon found to be unconstitutional laws out there clearly takes us past the point where we can use the term "outlier" with any honesty.

Whatever, it is clear that some people just don't value gun ownership and seek to denegrate those that do - using faulty logic and emotional appeals. A lot of these same people have their own pants pooping triggers, abortion being one that immediately comes to mind. Any time some outlier tries to say that a fetus may have some rights and/or some humanity, a lot of the same people that hate guns and gun ownership, mess their pants and go running with their checkbooks to their favorite women's rights organizations to ensure the enduring right to scramble a develping human.

Moral high ground? Meh. It's mostly all just a matter of what kind of ugly reality one can live with mmost comfortably. Some of us can accept the occasional nut job using a gun to kill a statistically negligible number of innocents. Others can accept allowing physicians to kill a few million developing humans. And so on and so forth.

That's what I figured, the attitude seems to be something along the lines of, "I got my slice of the pie so I'm happy enough to not make waves and, besides, It can't happen here; or maybe it can, but I'm too happy with my pie to worry about it."

Sorry for the subtlety. That isn't my attitude. My attitude is more along the lines of: the chances of ATF giving two schnitzels about my rifles, pistols and shotguns are zilch. I don't share your fears.

compare:
Some of us can accept the occasional nut job using a gun to kill a statistically negligible number of innocents.

and contrast:
"I got my slice of the pie so I'm happy enough to not make waves and, besides, It can't happen here; or maybe it can, but I'm too happy with my pie to worry about it."

oh look, we nearly had another one.

(not that a real true American ™ would have cared, of course. broken eggs being necessary for the making of a delicious cake, the people's right to shoot holes in each others heads shall not be infringed )

he needed the eggs

Others can accept allowing physicians to kill a few million developing humans.

The developing humans that just happen to be inside the bodies of developed humans, which makes determining the soundness of the justifications for killing the developing humans a rather intrusive personal matter for the government to be involved in? As opposed to whether or not someone should be allowed to own this or that type of gun? Mistrust of government sure does get allocated in funny ways sometimes.

Others can accept allowing physicians to kill a few million developing humans.

Just when I was getting over feeling guilty about masturbation. And I never went to med school!

"The developing humans that just happen to be inside the bodies of developed humans, which makes determining the soundness of the justifications for killing the developing humans a rather intrusive personal matter for the government to be involved in?"

OK. But how is that different than a murderous maniac up in your home or in your face?

It's less intrusive for the gov't to deny us the ability to shoot and kill someone who has made the choice to harm us?

How is it different than a govt that has become intent on denying your freedom/liberty, perhaps your life itself? Other than the convoluted of the govt deciding we can't can't protect ourselves from itself.

There's nothing more personal than being stabbed to death by a home invader.

You're just drawing arbitrary lines.

"just when I was getting over feeling guilty about masturbation."

Huh? But congrats on your personal achievement any how.

You're just drawing arbitrary lines.

You're just excluding middles and making things up. Keep a shotgun in your house. I'm all for it. If you can quote me advocating a ban on all firearms, go ahead. If you can give me an instance of actual government suppression that I could thwart with a gun, have at it. Otherwise, I'm not understanding what you're on about here other than silly fantasies. Sorry.

I see that the Sick (sic) shooter in Wisconsin had a band.

I wonder if they played "Cat Scratch Fever"?

"We like to dedicate this cover to the man who wrote it, Ted Nugent. It was he who gave all of us distemper.

I'd like to introduce our Gatling gun rhythm section. I know you can't tell them apart because all of them are white, male, bald, and on the pleasantly plump side. We have Dwayne out of Delta, Dwayne out of Duluth, and Dwayne out of Debbie.

Our AK-47 player just kills and I'll be trilling the vocals through this gravel pit of a vocal box I inherited from my Daddy, Hermann Goehring Goebbels, Georgie for short, who I shot between the eyes in a completely unavoidable domestic disturbance and Second Amendment celebration in the back yard.

We had a Jews-harp player but he died in a little train accident on our tour of Eastern Europe. We'd get us a Palestinians-harp player but culturally speaking they're all Semites, so who do you think we are, effing Joni Mitchell?

I wanna dedicate this song "Bite Me, Mrs. Obama" to all of the mud people out there who aren't allowed into out little gathering here. So, please raise your flame throwers in tribute ... uh one, uh .. um, what comes after one there, Dwayne?

I understand Mitt Romney will fronting a new band if he makes to the White House: Have ... and the Have-Nots, though word has it that he will immediately fire the Have-Nots and start a solo career.

"Keep a shotgun in your house. I'm all for it."

Thanks. I'm glad I have your permission.

How about when I am out of my house, perhaps going to a rough section of town? Should I drive around with that shotgun, perhaps causing a public disturbance by its visibility or am I allowed to have a more subtle concealed handgun?

How about if I live on a ranch down by the Mexican border and drug smugglers armed with assulat rifles are roaming in proximity to my home. Will you allow me to have a similar high capacity weapon?

"If you can give me an instance of actual government suppression that I could thwart with a gun, have at it."

Men with guns have overthrown govts for hundreds of years. Why, this very country was created when farmers and ruditmentary militia decided to pick up their personal weapons (guns mostly) and fight the British. Read some history. Could (or will) our govt become that oppressive. Again, read history. It's bound to happen. Sheesh.

Could I, alone, accomplish anything in this regard? of course not. Could a few hundred thousand like minded men? Yes.

Your problem is that you do not see yourself in that role. You are happy to be subjugated as long as they still toss pacifiers into your cage and let you gripe, ineffectually, about the state of things. Also, You simply have an egocentric view of life. Therefore, you cannot see anyone doing things that you yourself would not do.

The US military failed to secure Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. It would fail to secure the "homeland" if there was an organized insurection based on righteous and generally accepted cause.

Your problem is that you do not see yourself in that role. You are happy to be subjugated as long as they still toss pacifiers into your cage and let you gripe, ineffectually, about the state of things. Also, You simply have an egocentric view of life. Therefore, you cannot see anyone doing things that you yourself would not do.

Less invocation of the God's-eye-view would probably make your arguments more effective, I think. Telling other people what they are thinking, rather than simply asking them, is rarely an effective rhetorical gambit.

You pretty much invited that, by declaring that you'd find it time to revolt when the BATF started rappelling into YOUR backyard. Implicitly admitting that it was ok if they were doing other people's backyards.

The last time we had a real problem with people starting to organize against the government, when the militia movement was starting to go mainstream back in the late '80s, early '90s, it was precisely because the BATF was 'rappelling' into people's backyards.

There was a whole series of incidents, finally reaching the point with Ruby Ridge and Waco that the MSM couldn't keep a lid on it, where the government was having snipers shoot mothers while they held their babies, burning folks alive, and so forth. And while you were doubtless sleeping well in the knowledge that it wasn't your home on fire, a lot of people weren't quite so, as Blackhawk7 says, egocentric.

The government did eventually reform, it's been years since the last time I heard of the government burning anybody alive. (On American soil, anyway...) But they didn't change course because of civil libertarians, and certainly not because of liberals, who were actually egging them on.

They changed course because they got scared at how many Americans were starting to form militias. They changed course because a lot of people didn't draw their line in the sand in front of their own, personal feet.

I'm glad of that.

You pretty much invited that, by declaring that you'd find it time to revolt when the BATF started rappelling into YOUR backyard.

Given that, to the best of my knowledge, McKinneyTX and Slarti remain two different people separated by at least three states in between them, you might have quit here before embarrassing yourself any further. But I suppose I should admire your tenacity.


(PS: I don't.)

so, how did all those militias do? did they overthrow anything? did they even come close? no?

face it, gun fetishists, your weapons aren't going to be enough to overthrow the office of county comptroller. besides, even trying would be illegal - and we all know how much you love the Rule Of Law.

How about when I am out of my house, perhaps going to a rough section of town?

He says to a guy who works in Camden, New Jersey - in a capacity that requires more than occasional driving and walking in rough sections of town (not that there are many not-rough sections of Camden). And, good lord, how many rough sections of Philadelphia have I driven or walked through? Never. Carried. A. Gun.

Small children and little old ladies live in rough sections of town and couldn't handle guns even if they had them.

How about if I live on a ranch down by the Mexican border and drug smugglers armed with assulat rifles are roaming in proximity to my home.

I'd advise ranchers not to get into assault-rifle games of shoot-'em-up with Mexican drug gangs. If there looks to be trouble a' brewin', get inside and keep the shotgun handy just in case, while you're calling the sheriff.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577560901492837174.html

Well, Police seem to agree with Brett and me.

"He says to a guy who works in Camden, New Jersey - in a capacity that requires more than occasional driving and walking in rough sections of town (not that there are many not-rough sections of Camden)."

Well good for you. If that's a risk you want take, that's your choice. Why must I live by your calculations? Like I said, egocentric.

Well good for you. If that's a risk you want take, that's your choice. Why must I live by your calculations? Like I said, egocentric.

You don't have to live by my calculations. Don't go into rough neighborhoods if you don't want to. And I'm not necessarily opposed to your having a gun of some sort, provided you're not mentally unstable or a criminal.

My point is simply that, based on my experience, your rough-section-of-town boogeyman isn't scary enough to persuade me of much of anything. You'd have an easier time convincing me that people should wear helmets while driving or riding in a car, if we're considering the actual risks involved, which I thought your point was about.

I'd have to guess that, were someone to propose to you that he should be allowed to carry an assault rifle on a commercial jet, just in case someone tried to attack him, you'd disagree, based on your evaluation of the risks involved. Would that make you egocentric?

"Would that make you egocentric?"

No.

Based on the numbers you provided in your Camden link, there is almost a 2% risk of being the victim of a violent crime, per annum.

If we assume (not the best assumption, but probably not too far off base) that the same people are not the victims in the next years data, then, over a ten year period of continual living in Camden, you have a 20% risk of being the victim of violent crime. That is a very real risk.

Paranoid marketing strategy? Feh.

Compare that to the risk of being on a hijacked airplane.

Then there's other issues revealing the abject silliness of your retort, like the fact that assualt rifles would shoot holes through the airplane and cause it to crash.

Paranoid marketing strategy? Feh.

was the marketing strategy only used in the Camden NJ area? no?

so what's the crime rate where you live?

Phil, mea culpa; Note to self, think before hitting "post:.

"Will you allow me to have a similar high-capacity weapon?"

Well, there is Slart's reasonable advice and then there is Dick Cavett's advice to Norman Mailer near the end of this YouTube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8m9vDRe8fw

Blackhawk7, you can count on a three-sided offensive in America, if I get my way. The American military pinned down in the middle, your militia, and my militia.

It's going to be a long war, and before it's over your army and the American military will find it mutually expedient to join forces.

Gosh, I'm sure glad OBWI posting rules specify checking ours weapons at the door, especially since guns and alcohol don't mix.


If we assume (not the best assumption, but probably not too far off base) that the same people are not the victims in the next years data...

Actually, it's a terrible assumption. A better assumption would be that the people who carry guns are the ones most likely to get shot, because they shoot at each other. Another would be that street prostitutes are very likely to be beaten or raped or robbed, and that they are likely to be victimized more than once - maybe a few (or more) times a year.

I thought you were concerned about passing through. I've worked in Camden full time for almost 12 years, and I've never come close to having anything happen to me. Nor any of my coworkers that I know of. So the particular argument that you need a gun simply because you might decide to drive through a bad neighborhood isn't compelling to me, just as the argument that one might need an assault rifle on a plane isn't compelling to either of us.

Now, you may have other perfectly legitimate reasons to own some guns of some sort or another. I doubt any of them would apply to assault rifles, but I'm not opposed to any and all legal ownership of properly registered guns, which apparently means I'm just being unreasonable.

Better a long war than a long enslavement to tryanny.

I don't care who sides with whom. As long as at the end of the day the last fascist is left strangled by the intestines of the last political "face person".

That said, my militia will win because we actually know how to use the weapons you dread. This is a situation where on the job training probably won't make for a good outcome.

Agreed on the alcohol.

Our drug of choice will be a meth amphetamine/hashish mixture - load, unlock, point in the right direction and charge at the enemy guns. Great deeds in battle, most confirmed kills, results in the reward of your more desireable women.

See you on the field of battle.

Brett, if you deny entry to law enforcement who are attempting to execute a search warrant and exchange gunfire with them, describe what you think is going to transpire after a period of siege and negotiation.

Under any Constitution.

Use me as an example.

Now, put down the phone and quit dialing the FBI for a moment.

Pretend.

I have been known to make positive statements about Sharia Law and the basic human right of al Qaeda to overthrow the Princes on the Arabian Peninsula.

I have an arsenal of weaponry, not specified necessarily as prohibited by the Second Amendment under strict interpretation now abroad in the land.

For example, I have a basement full of white powder of unidentified but suspicious composition. Maybe I'm going to be doing some plastering; maybe not, but I'm definitely plastered and a little weird what with the cavorting with awfully young looking girls through the pot plants in the backyard and the occasional ritual howling at the moon and firing of heavy weapons into the air on Arbor Day.

I once returned the nice pie your wife baked for me untouched, the crust unmolested, with the exception of a swastika and the happy declaration "all mud people must be vanquished to avenge the killing of David Koresh and Randy Weaver" carved into it.

I need your help, neighbor, with this pesky siege of dogs, black helicopters and gummint snipers trying to serve me a warrant.

Sure, I've broken a few nuisance laws but what's the point of freedom if you can't have good lark every once in
a while, compadre?

Sneak through the tunnel I've dug to your basement and join me.

Or, did you alert the police?

Alert to NSA who might be lurking: We're hypothesizing over here so get a life. Any resemblance to living, real people is only coincidence though given recent events, I understand you can't be too sure. If it makes you feel any better, I'm white, but I'm not bald. I'm male, but I'm not your beefy thick necked type and my musical tastes run to the British Invasion.

surely this mother and 11 year old daughter should've been carrying weapons, in order to defend themselves against the woman who was using her 2nd amendment right to defend her chicken coop from stray pieces of playground chalk.

freedom!

"A better assumption would be people who carry guns are the ones most likely to get shot, because they shoot at each other."

Which is a double edged sword because most people that carry guns and shoot each other od so for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons would be that most "victims" of "gun violence" are criminals themselves and the shootings are the result of criminal activities.

If the illegal drug trade were to be eliminated by making those drugs legal, the "scourge of gun violence" would significantly reduce to the point where the probability of dying from a food allergy would be greater. Then you could join govt interventionists in the campaign to make peanuts illegal.

"I thought you were concerned about passing through. I've worked in Camden full time for almost 12 years, and I've never come close to having anything happen to me. Nor any of my coworkers that I know of. So the particular argument that you need a gun simply because you might decide to drive through a bad neighborhood isn't compelling to me....."

Yes. But you live there. You know which areas to avoid, where not to get out of your car. This improves your odds. merely driving through and perhaps taking a wrong turn, getting lost, stopping for gas, etc, i would not have that knowledge advantage.

Still, your argument reminds me of the, "Cigarettes can't be that bad, I have a great aunt that smoked 2 packs a day of non'filters and lived to be 97" approach.

cleek, I understand where that enraged, armed woman is coming from.

She raised those chickens to barter for health care. Further, and inevitably, she needed the eggs, especially from the chicken sitting on her head.

blackhawk7: I dread the weapons I've used, so once again, your presumption that you are talking to a faggotty, politically correct wog liberal (not that there is anything wrong with that, in fact, those are some of the true Americans who ought to be armed to the teeth to counter the ascendant scum ransacking the land) in a gang shower room is a little off the mark.

But that's O.K. I tend to mouth off too before I realize who is concealed carrying.

So sit back on the stool and watch the game.

I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure that even standing inside an in-flight fuselage and firing a gun right through the skin would not simply cause it to crash. You have a vanishingly small chance, except perhaps in an extended exchange of gunfire, of hitting enough key avionics to matter, or of puncturing a fuel tank.

hsh, we've established in the past that this dude is pants-pissingly afraid of anyplace that might contain a large proportion of nonwhite people, places that I ride a bicycle through regularly with no problems whatsoever. The worst that's ever happened to me is some crackhead asking me what time it was, then going on a rant about time when I said I didn't have a watch. I probably should've shot him just to be safe.

If the illegal drug trade were to be eliminated by making those drugs legal, the "scourge of gun violence" would significantly reduce to the point where the probability of dying from a food allergy would be greater.

Now we're talkin'.

merely driving through and perhaps taking a wrong turn, getting lost, stopping for gas, etc, i would not have that knowledge advantage.

Okay. So this is the scenario that justifies what, exactly?

The worst that's ever happened to me is some crackhead asking me what time it was, then going on a rant about time when I said I didn't have a watch.

Mostly I get asked for spare change. It's crazy out there.

Just thought I'd drop by and see what's going on down here. What's with the d&ck measuring contest? Any shots fired yet?

It's not safe on the internets, I tells yiz. Do carry (ahem) on.

"...we've established in the past that this dude is pants-pissingly afraid of anyplace that might contain a large proportion of nonwhite people, places that I ride a bicycle through regularly with no problems whatsoever. "

mmmhhhhhmmm. I thought there were posting rukes (standtads), whatever.

Phil = blah blagh lagh blah.

Maybe I'm not white?

"Okay. So this is the scenario that justifies what, exactly?"

The legal right to self defense?

This is a very good article.

I am not sure if it is completely true in Ireland. You can be called a terrorist if you are white and Irish and in a paramilitary organisation eg. IRA and some other organisations that I can't remember the name of.

My understanding about slavery among Native Americans is that it is only in the Northwest Coast that there was 'true slavery', so that the children of slaves would be slaves, and slaves would be killed at the funeral of the tribal leader. In other Native American groups, there were slaves who were taken as prisoners of war, but their children would not be classified as slaves (though this might be brought up to insult them) This article (from page 300) discusses it and the author has written a monograph about NWC slavery.

I'm not sure if this is an observation I have seen or one I am making, but one of the reasons slavery existed in a more organized fashion there was because it was easier to make raids and then escape via the coast and the other reason is that their societies were, as you note, based on 'salmon ranching', which created a massive amount of wealth that created a very hierarchical society. Another point to make about the amount of wealth they were able to amass, when it came time to negotiate treaty rights, they generally gave up most of their land as long as they were allowed to retain their fishing rights.

whoops, wrong thread.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad