Everybody PANIC!

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:53
VIEWED: 6382
PAGE 1 of 1

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:04 AM

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/11/2026745.aspx

LOL

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/11/2026745.aspx

LOL

I'd be really curious to see what the reaction from the right would be if this had been a Cheney or Bush appearance and the guy had been an anti-war protester with the same gun and the same sign.

or...

Good lord, would somebody please just SHOO- ummm, SHOO Ron Paul and all his supporters away, in a non-violent, non-bloody-headshot kind of way?

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:59 AM

Hello,

They can start 'shoo'ing me, sir. I support Ron Paul.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

They can start 'shoo'ing me, sir. I support Ron Paul.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony, that was aimed squarely at Wulfie - he made essentially that same remark about Hillary Clinton a few minutes ago, over something he apparently disagrees with her about, and feel something should be done to her over it.

Mike

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:53 AM

At least adopt a temp avatar while thinking...

These were ranked the most evil avatars:

Anthony, never get in the way of fire aimed at wulf :)

Wulf, no offense intended man.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:13 AM

Ehhh, Im used to it.

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
At least adopt a temp avatar while thinking...

These were ranked the most evil avatars:

Anthony, never get in the way of fire aimed at wulf :)

Wulf, no offense intended man.

Yeah, but none of those really speaks to me. A bunny with pancakes on its head is odd and cute, but I don't know if it really gets the essence of the "real" virtual me. And I certainly am not a highwayman or thief. And skulls are just so Ed Hardy...

Meanwhile, I remain the Angriest Man on the Internet. It's a tough job, but at least the pay sucks!

Mike

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:44 PM

Okay, back on topic.

Wulfie and others:

Do you think it's a GOOD idea to wear a gun to an event where the President will be appearing, especially with the knowledge that death threats against the President are up over 400% since a black man was elected President?

Do you think it helps your cause to have a local show up wearing his gun on his hip and waving a sign that reads "It is time to water the tree of liberty", knowing that that is paraphrased from the following Jefferson quote:

Quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

So he's pretty clearly referencing some spilling of blood, whether he considers Obama a tyrant or a patriot.

I'm a gun rights guy, but this is just a stupid decision on this yahoo's part that will do NOTHING to help the cause of Second Amendment believers. In fact, it will HURT our cause, because it makes us all out to be hell-for-glory nutters.

Gotta run, but more later...

Mike

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:43 PM

Cops killed all the dead presidents, and cops wear loaded guns in public. JFK was shot in front of Dallas Police Dept, FBI HQ, Secret Service HQ, CIA HQ, DIA HQ. The patsy cop (US Marine Corps) arrested for the crime denied guilt, then was shot by a jewish mobster inside that same police station.

1+1=2

Quote:
I didn't shoot nobody no sir! I emphatically deny these charges!"
-Lee Oswald

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:50 PM

Hell-for-glory.... I like that.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:47 PM

Somebody shows up at an Obama townhall with a loaded gun strapped to his leg???? And we're suposed to take our cues from PN about a reasonable response???

Sheesh.

Too bad nobody ever did that to BUSH.

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:07 PM

Y'all, this is the kind of thing that makes the rest of the world look at the US and go "Huh?" while scratching our heads.

How is it okay for some random dude to walk around with a gun strapped to his leg? It may have worked for Mal, but in real life?

*
People before profits

RUE

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:07 PM

It's even worse - it's not PN - it's Wulfie.

***************************************************************

Same difference.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:14 PM

Oh, yeah... I figured out where the hell-for-glory reference came from.

Wulfie, you're a nutter. Or you're doing one helluva imitation.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:31 PM

Wati a sec Sig... so being openly strapped, is a bad thing?

A "nutter" thing?

Explain.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:36 PM

If I have to explain to you why it's nutty to be "openly strapped" within shooting distance of the Prez then you're too far gone for anything I can possibly hope to address.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:42 PM

Or maybe... its better to be openly strapped 5 feet from the Prez... cus its a reminder to him that he ANSWERS TO THE PEOPLE.

One way or another.

But thats a thread for another day

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:42 PM

If you think it's such a good idea Wulf, why don't you go ahead and try it?

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:43 PM

While I think it perhaps socially inappropriate to visibly display hardware of such nature at the event, he was acting within his Constitutional Rights, and utilizing them under both the First and Second Amendment - perhaps in a way folk might find offensive or unnerving, but still WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.

Standing up for Constitutional Rights means you stand and deliver even when you disagree with how someone else uses em, otherwise what's the fuckin point - it just becomes a tool of oppression unless as intended, they are a universal and natural set of rights, unassailable, period.

I would have opted for concealed carry at a public event, myself, for tactical reasons more so than other peoples perceptions - cause assholes that us Americans can be, while we might not LIKE our presidents, once a man takes the Oath and assumes the office, he BECOMES that office, a living symbol, and to shoot at him is to our collective psyche shooting at all that is America, far and away more offensive to our nature than flag-burning - sure, there's some nutters out there who might, but for every one of those there's thousands of us who even the IDEA of capping a standing POTUS fills us with horror.

Even Bush, for cryin out loud, if I happened to be in the vicinity and someone had tried to blow him away and I had a clear shot, they'd be eatin lead - and I wouldn't want his damn thanks for it cause I hated the man both personally and as president - but he WAS our president, as is Obama, jackass that he happens to be, and us Americans really don't hold with that kinda thing as a general rule.

Anyhows, this guy was a bonehead and exercising poor judgement, but that's his decision to make, and he was well within his rights - his intent, I believe, was to remind people of exactly those two things, although I rather think he did so in a damned counterproductive fashion.

Fact of the matter though, Rights are either UNIVERSAL, or they are simply a tool of oppression, and don't go telling me you believe in them unless you're willing to stand and deliver even for folks you hate, who use them in ways that offend you, upset you, or even frighten you - cause if you don't, what you're REALLY saying is that those rights should apply to YOU, but NOT to folk who don't agree with you.

And you know that that is ?

That's the very basis of Tyranny, folks.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:48 PM

Lol Frem always puts things better than I can...

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:30 PM

Quote:

Anyhows, this guy was a bonehead and exercising poor judgement, but that's his decision to make, and he was well within his rights - his intent, I believe, was to remind people of exactly those two things, although I rather think he did so in a damned counterproductive fashion.

"damned counterproductive" indeed. Which is EXACTLY why I pointed it out in my post the way I did.

Running up to a cop and waving a handgun in his face while shouting "Fuck YOU, ya fuckin' PIG!" might not BE illegal in the strictest Constitutional sense, but if you don't get shot for it or beaten down severely for it, the mere act of doing it in full view of TV cameras is going to turn people AGAINST your "exercising your rights", because they are going to be horrified at your sheer idiocy and they're going to decide that if that kind of shit is legal, it damned well oughtn't be.

You're already dealing with a large portion of the population being distinctly uncomfortable around guns, and quite a few of them would like to do away with them completely. And just when gun-rights advocates actually start to get a little traction, some idiot douchebag like this has to be a fuckin' moron about it and then turn around and say, "What? It's LEGAL, right?"

My bet is, he'll be the first one bitching when it ISN'T legal anymore, despite the fact that he was the fucking dolt that brought the heat down on actual decent, responsible gun owners.

Y'all know what ELSE is "legal", but many of you would argue still isn't "right"? Massive bonuses paid to the CEOs of bankrupt investment banks... bonuses paid for with YOUR tax dollars, because that's the way the contracts were LEGALLY set up.
Now, those people were acting within their "rights", weren't they? How many of you felt the same way I did (and I think Frem was one of them, if memory serves), and would've liked to see them hanging from lamp-posts?

Something can be strictly LEGAL, and still be both stupid AND wrong. And this isn't going to help gun rights, it's going to hurt them, especially if more people start emulating this Fudd. And even MORE especially if some dipshit like Wulfie decides that "a .308 will decide" if Obama is really President or not. That's just pure stupidity, Wulf, and puts not just your freedom forfeit, but could very well spell the end of this site.

You wanna not be thought of as a racist asshole? Stop acting like one, would be my FIRST advice.

Mike

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:40 PM

Frem, Wulf, you're both idiots.

There are nutters out there- REAL nutters- carrying guns. Racist nutters who like nothing more than to "let a .308 decide" who will be President. And while it may be very well within his right to stand around with a gun strapped to his leg while the Prez walks by, it is ALSO very much within the PRESIDENT's right to have fifty Secret Service on top of him.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:57 PM

Ok, Sig. Never said it wasn't.

But the truth is... those who chose to lead need to KNOW, not guess, that they can and WILL be brought to account for the mistakes/treachery they pull.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:08 PM

You know what ?
That's it.

I'll have an apology, Siggy, or we're done talkin on a mutual respect level.

Mikey ?

Quote:
Something can be strictly LEGAL, and still be both stupid AND wrong.

That's more or less what I was sayin, just because something is STUPID, don't mean it's illegal.

You can't outlaw stupidity, nor should you try, less you wanna throw everyfrigginbody in jail, cause you'd have to, sooner or later.

And just cause someone uses a Right in a manner that's stupid, dangerous, or offensive, is no cause to excuse revoking it neither, or even not respecting it - you don't have to respect a person to respect their rights, I mean look at that asshole Phelps, my opinion OF him and the manner in which he exercises his free speech is well known, but that's a far different thing from saying anyone who SUPPORTS free speech is a "nutter".

And I am fuckin tired of having to make that same distinction to folks who seem to think Constitutional Rights only apply to shit that they approve of and I *AM* going to be downright nasty about it if I must continue.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:11 PM

Quote:
But the truth is... those who chose to lead need to KNOW, not guess, that they can and WILL be brought to account for the mistakes/treachery they pull.

Oh ... bullshoid.

The only thing a man with a gun symbolizes is that there are nutters with guns out there. He could be crazy like PN. Like the guy who shot up the museum. Like any number of lunatics who think they're doing God's work (or whatever) and they think a gun will solve all their problems. So a gun isn't a reminder of anything other than ... "It only takes ONE lunatic with a gun to kill me" Has nothing to do with democracy or tyranny or whether either the public official OR the shooter represents "the will of the people". Most likely NEITHER does. The only way to bring a sitting offical to justice is to bring them to JUSTICE.

You think you can have a single-person revolution?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:15 PM

Quote:
I'll have an apology, Siggy, or we're done talkin on a mutual respect level.

Too late, 'cause you already lost mine in this thread.

I get that you have this big thing about self-defense. But this guy wasn't being threatened. In fact, as both you and Wulfie seem to agree on... he was the one who was doing the threatening.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:30 PM

Um, wow.

You both don't really mean you've lost complete respect for each other, right? That's just a heat of the moment thing, isn't it? I mean, people can disagree here without that being a cause for loss of respect, can't they?

We've all known Frem carries guns and sees them as a survival tool, that hasn't changed, so if there was respect for him before it can't have been lost by him reasserting this.

And he has said that he thinks this guy was being stupid, I don't see really where he disagrees with you all that much, SignyM. :?

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um, wow.

You both don't really mean you've lost complete respect for each other, right? That's just a heat of the moment thing, isn't it? I mean, people can disagree here without that being a cause for loss of respect, can't they?

We've all known Frem carries guns and sees them as a survival tool, that hasn't changed, so if there was respect for him before it can't have been lost by him reasserting this.

And he has said that he thinks this guy was being stupid, I don't see really where he disagrees with you all that much, SignyM. :?

I take it more as a heat-of-the-moment kind of thing, myself. Fremmie and I see eye-to-eye on probably 90% of stuff, and in true fashion, when we disagree, it can be quite noisy. Thing is, we're not even disagreeing. I support this guy's right to carry, but I'll call him stupid to his face for choosing to force the issue at this event and with that choice of words. Did he do anything illegal? Nope. But what he did was give a great image to the people he opposes and who oppose him, and you can bet that they'll use that image to try to garner support to outlaw just this kind of thing.

What no one has explained to me is how he's supposed to be "helping" ANY part of the debate.

I don't think the President was ever in any real danger from this idiot; had me so much as made a move toward his gun with his itchy trigger finger, one of two things would have happened: Either there would have been a huge pile of well-dressed men in dark glasses on top of him, or one of those guys would have put two hollowpoint slugs right into his noggin before he could blink.

Mike

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:02 PM

You know how the right to swing my fist ends with your nose? Well, the right to carry a weapon ends when it constitutes a threat.

Someone walking up and down the street with a gun at-hand constitutes a threat, whether that person is a cop, a soldier, or a civilian.

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:13 PM

I'll be interested to see how "Hero" calls this one.

Seems he'd be able to make a case for someone armed at a Presidential appearance, carrying a sign specifically referencing a call for bloodshed, as someone who is clearly a danger to himself and others. Seems he'd want to take this guy's guns away... y'know, "for his own good".

Mike

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:41 PM

No, it's not a heat of the moment thing at all.

After the crap I just dealt with in another thread from her State worshipping buddy, and this on top of it - no Mikey, I really have had it.

I made it abundantly clear where I stood, and Siggy called me out like that not for having any agreement with the dumbass, but for pointing out that Constitutional Rights are universal.

And you know what, I am sick of it - both of those jackboot cuddling state worshippers are gonna get the same treatment from me as Rappy got, in spades, cause I have tried, and tried, and TRIED to be nice to them, to be reasonable, rational, hall, even damned forgiving, considering that mostly what I catch in return is lies, distortions, having strawmen or even other peoples entire arguments I never made or didn't even agree with attributed to me not out of negligence, but pure malice ?

Oh hell no, that's just the last damned straw.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:43 PM

Quote:
You know how the right to swing my fist ends with your nose? Well, the right to carry a weapon ends when it constitutes a threat.

Well then, your speech is in my eyes, and constitutes a threat.

So shut the fuck up.

-F

RUE

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:44 PM

"Seems he'd want to take this guy's guns away... y'know, "for his own good"."

I don't know about his own good - I'd be more concerned about mine.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:35 AM

Quote:
Oh hell no, that's just the last damned straw.... So shut the fuck up.

And Frem stomps off in a huff???

Dunno, Frem, you're takin' this waaay more seriously than I am. Way more seriously than it needs to be.

But I for one don't feel as if I've "distorted" your arguments, so I have no idea what you think you're forgiving.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:45 AM

Frem,

how would you propose the secret service do its job exactly, if everybody within the vicinity of the President were allowed to carry a gun, and if as in your vision, everybody did?

Do you really think that if everybody had a gun the PResident would be safer, because they would defend him? HOw many innocent people could get shot in that kind of "defense?" And does the threat of getting shot really deter a crazy person who is willing ot shoot at a President?

How would you propose the President do his job exactly, if he couldn't get close enough to the American people to adress them directly? He is after all, supposed to report back to us...he is after all, our representitive.

...............

we KNOW there are crazy people willing to shoot at our Presidents. It is not a possibility but a certainty. Can any kind of democracy be sustained in an enviroment where crazy people can throw it out of balance with the twitch of a finger?

Is it really unreasonable to weigh freedom against freedom here? I don't think there's much of a slippery slope in this case.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:53 AM

Well, the problem is that this jerk thought he was being cute, and Wulfie thought it was cute too, and Frem raised it to a Constitutional issue.

No, it ain't cute. It's a threat. He got called on it. As he should.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:48 AM

Of course he should - while universal, your Rights are equal to those of others, not a trump card, how did this not compute ?

I would have placed a pair of secret service agents or even general security folk with him as a precaution, which would not violate his rights, and would be a completely reasonable security measure, which if you picked the right people, could be parleyed into a PR coup by showing an acknowledgement of his argument while still respecting his rights.

-F

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:

Yeah, but none of those really speaks to me. A bunny with pancakes on its head is odd and cute, but I don't know if it really gets the essence of the "real" virtual me. And I certainly am not a highwayman or thief. And skulls are just so Ed Hardy...

Meanwhile, I remain the Angriest Man on the Internet. It's a tough job, but at least the pay sucks!

Mike

Me neither, I thought it was funny. That bunny is pretty evil though.

I think that assassins against Obama are for hire. I don't think that random loons get this close to the president out of chance. I think there are always thousands of would be assassins, but they're stopped. No way am I believing in more people wanting to assassinate Obama than Bush. I suspect 1/3 of republicans and 2/3 of democrats wanted to assassinate Bush, it's just no one could get close to him unless they already had his cock in their mouth.

Sorry

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:08 AM

Quote:

Of course he should - while universal, your Rights are equal to those of others, not a trump card, how did this not compute ?

But Frem, what about when rights contradict each other? For example, the second amendment may allow a person to have a gun (I'm not getting into a second amendment debate here) but the first amendment (as amended by the ninth, if I'm getting this right) says I have the right to free assembly. But how can I assemble freely if my safety is threatened?
A nation that kills each other with guns to the tune of 10 000 people a year doesn't seem to be taking freedom of assembly very seriously.

The point I am trying to make is that rights aren't alway absolute - because they have to work together with everyone else's. The Canadian constitution spells this out, by saying that these rights apply insofar as they don't infringe on the rights of others - but we have an almost wholly written constitution, and it was ratified in 1982, so it's much newer. My understanding is that your constitution is both written and unwritten - ie. there are Supreme Court decisions (Roe v. Wade comes to mind) that bear on the application of the constituion. This is the case in Canada too.

I wonder, what is your perspective on other collections of "rights" - for example, the constitutions of other countries, or the UN Declaration of Rights, which is my personal favourite. The reason I ask is because the right to bear arms is a right in the US, but not in most other places.

*
People before profits

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I think that assassins against Obama are for hire. I don't think that random loons get this close to the president out of chance. I think there are always thousands of would be assassins, but they're stopped. No way am I believing in more people wanting to assassinate Obama than Bush. I suspect 1/3 of republicans and 2/3 of democrats wanted to assassinate Bush, it's just no one could get close to him unless they already had his cock in their mouth.

Sorry

Don't apologize for that - it was damned funny. And probably true.

Now, as for more people wanting to kill Bush or Obama, I don't know. I didn't want to see Bush killed, I wanted (and still want) to see him brought up on charges for war crimes, among other high crimes.

The reason you have a radical increase in the number of death threats against Obama is twofold:

1) He's black. Believe it or not, for a bigger portion of this country than you'd be comfortable knowing about, that's enough.

2) The kinds of people who are allied against Obama tend to be the ones Homeland Security warned about: right-wing extremists. As such, they tend to be quite a bit more heavily-armed than your average left-wing tree-hugger.

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:25 AM

Quote:

I would have placed a pair of secret service agents or even general security folk with him as a precaution, which would not violate his rights, and would be a completely reasonable security measure, which if you picked the right people, could be parleyed into a PR coup by showing an acknowledgement of his argument while still respecting his rights.

I think I'd go with bracing the guy with a half-dozen agents. Completely surround him. He can't be seen or heard, his sign can't be seen, but he's still well within his "rights".

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:27 AM

Quote:
A nation that kills each other with guns to the tune of 10 000 people a year doesn't seem to be taking freedom of assembly very seriously.

Vixen, you might want to check your figures. I think the real figure is closer to 30,000 per year here in good ol' America!

Mike

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:39 AM

Yowza! I saw a number from 2007 that was just over 10 000. I'm sure there are varying statistics, but it's a whole damn lot.

*
People before profits

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:11 AM

Yowza indeed.

Quote:
In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).

(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2009.)

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

I think that just-over-10,000 number you saw from '07 must have been just for murders. We seem to be pretty well stuck at around 30,000 gun deaths per year here.

But for comparison's sake, we also have around 42,000 traffic deaths per year, and around 32,000 flu-related deaths per year.

So guns have their problems, but apparently they're far less of a problem than a car or a case of the sniffles. And it's rare that I see anyone lobbying for the outlawing of automobiles. And certainly they're not protected anywhere in the Constitution.

Mike

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I think that just-over-10,000 number you saw from '07 must have been just for murders. We seem to be pretty well stuck at around 30,000 gun deaths per year here.

But for comparison's sake, we also have around 42,000 traffic deaths per year, and around 32,000 flu-related deaths per year.

Guns and car crashes are extremely minor problems. Especially when guns prevent millions of crimes, no cops required.

Quote:

"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, "Death by Medicine", March 2004 (plus 1-Million annual aborticides in USA)
http://.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

"The Centers for Disease Control says that 100,000 young athletes between the ages of 13 and 30 drop dead every year, either during exercise, during a sporting event or immediately after. Or twice that."
-Dr Joel Wallach ND DVM, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, 1991 Nobel Prize Nominee - Medicine http://firstamendmentradio.com http://www.wallachonline.com Dead Doctors Don't Lie http://www.deaddoctors.com 46 MILLION copies sold
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9000052717197218681

In NH no permit is required for open carry of loaded guns in public.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_nh.htm

I saw two of these trucks today in Knoxville TN:

Hussein Obama wants to kill millions more US citizens, since 55-million murders is not enough. Obama especially hates black sheeple, as 1,000 dead Kenyans can attest. Or no they can't... they're dead.

No guns allowed for self defense in British Kenya

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:07 AM

Kwicko said:

Quote:

So guns have their problems, but apparently they're far less of a problem than a car or a case of the sniffles. And it's rare that I see anyone lobbying for the outlawing of automobiles. And certainly they're not protected anywhere in the Constitution.

Well, people have and continue to lobby hard for safer cars. But there's a big distinction between cars and guns: cars aren't designed to kill or wound. They're designed to get us from point A to point B. They serve a clear and essential purpose in our lives, and we accept the risk of using them because it is outweighed significantly by the benefits. Guns, on the other hand, serve no purpose except to kill things. You can make an argument for target shooting, fine. But the idea that guns deter crime is laughable - if that were the case the US would have one of the lowest crime rates in the world - which of course is not the case.

PN said:

Quote:

Hussein Obama wants to kill millions more US citizens, since 55-million murders is not enough. Obama especially hates black sheeple, as 1,000 dead Kenyans can attest. Or no they can't... they're dead.

Okay, I'm not going to challenge these statements because that would be a waste of time. But, I do feel compelled to point out: saying something doesn't make it true. You need to formulate an argument. Saying that some fictional person (who is Hussein Obama?) wants to do X, Y, or Z, without any proof or even a logical argument, is just a waste of space.

Why can't the nutters at this place figure out how to form an argument?

http://www.ehow.com/how_2141133_make-an-argument.html

*
People before profits

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:18 AM

Hello,

Vixen, being a relatively new contributor, you may be unaware of Piratenews. He is batshit crazy. He is incapable of formulating a logical argument chain that will take you reasonably from A to B. Sometimes he says something that is true, but he undermines this by jabbering away on patently ludicrous tangents. Just wait till he talks about the Nazi Jew Queen of England.

Signy, it may have escaped you that Frem became upset with you immediately after you called him an idiot. He requested an apology for this, and was blown off.

Now to comment on guns and the first and second amendments...

Someone is not threatening you merely because they are wearing a firearm. You may worry that someone is a nutter. You may worry that they will un-holster that weapon and blow you the fuck away. Fine. It's your right to worry. But it's his right to have that gun. You can't take that right away just because you have arbitrarily decided that he can't be trusted. People must be judged on what they actually do. When he un-holsters that bad boy and starts waving it around, THEN he's done something wrong.

It takes courage to live in a free country. It really does. All sorts of people with all sorts of rights. Who knows what they'll do? What if they misuse their rights? What if they use a right just so that they can more easily approach an illegal act? Freedom is fucking scary. It's not for the faint of heart.

I like to think that's why the ole motto goes, "America the Brave." Freedom is inherently unsafe. It takes a bold customer to live in a country with 300 million other people who just might, at any second, do... anything.

I like it here.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you think it's a GOOD idea to wear a gun to an event where the President will be appearing, especially with the knowledge that death threats against the President are up over 400% since a black man was elected President?

Why not? Isn't it his constitutional right? Much like being belligerent to a peace officer in your own home or at least in front of your home?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you think it helps your cause to have a local show up wearing his gun on his hip and waving a sign that reads "It is time to water the tree of liberty", knowing that that is paraphrased from the following Jefferson quote:

Quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

So he's pretty clearly referencing some spilling of blood, whether he considers Obama a tyrant or a patriot.

Was the guy being threatening? Was he yelling and waving his gun around? Why should he not be allowed his right to free speech?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm a gun rights guy, but this is just a stupid decision on this yahoo's part that will do NOTHING to help the cause of Second Amendment believers. In fact, it will HURT our cause, because it makes us all out to be hell-for-glory nutters.

Frem has it right here, IMHO. What makes you think you can pick and choose which rights people are allowed to exercise and when they are allowed to do it?

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:54 AM

Well, gosh... I guess I should say thanks for lumping me in with "the nutters".

Quote:
But the idea that guns deter crime is laughable - if that were the case the US would have one of the lowest crime rates in the world - which of course is not the case.

The idea that guns CAUSE crime is similarly laughable. The highest crime rates in the US are in places with the strictest gun control laws on their books, and some of the places in the US with the LOWEST crime rates are in places with the loosest gun control laws and the most guns.

How about the rest of the world? What are the places with the LOWEST crime rates, and what are the rest of their laws, not just the ones regarding guns?

Meanwhile, it seems I'm using my guns badly, or in a fashion they were never designed for, because I've never killed anyone or anything with them.

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you think it's a GOOD idea to wear a gun to an event where the President will be appearing, especially with the knowledge that death threats against the President are up over 400% since a black man was elected President?

Why not? Isn't it his constitutional right? Much like being belligerent to a peace officer in your own home or at least in front of your home?

So you're saying he should have been arrested?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you think it helps your cause to have a local show up wearing his gun on his hip and waving a sign that reads "It is time to water the tree of liberty", knowing that that is paraphrased from the following Jefferson quote:

Quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

So he's pretty clearly referencing some spilling of blood, whether he considers Obama a tyrant or a patriot.

Was the guy being threatening? Was he yelling and waving his gun around? Why should he not be allowed his right to free speech?

So you wouldn't mind if someone showed up to a Palin rally with a sniper rifle and a sign that says "All idiot c**ts must die!", then? You'd fully support them in the exercise of their rights? What about if they show up with their gun strapped to their leg at the police station, blasting "Fuck tha Police!" on their stereo system?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm a gun rights guy, but this is just a stupid decision on this yahoo's part that will do NOTHING to help the cause of Second Amendment believers. In fact, it will HURT our cause, because it makes us all out to be hell-for-glory nutters.

Frem has it right here, IMHO. What makes you think you can pick and choose which rights people are allowed to exercise and when they are allowed to do it?

What makes you think YOU can pick and choose? You're in favor of the white guy taking his gun to a rally, but against the black guy exercising his free speech rights in his own home? Does that seem right to you?

And can you please show me where I said the guy did anything illegal? Can you show me where I said he should be imprisoned for what he did? What I *DID* say - and what you seem unable to comprehend - is that actions like this, while they may be "legal" in the strictest sense, will be used to drive efforts to make them ILLEGAL. So how does that help?

Do you contend that I should do everything under the sun that is technically "legal", just because I can? Is there no action that can be taken for which you would say, "Okay, that's not illegal, but it IS really, really stupid and probably shouldn't be done"?

My point is that this yahoo really needed somebody by his side to act as his voice of reason, someone to tell him, "This isn't helping." Just like those who are burning people in effigy, just like Glenn Beck saying he wants to poison Nancy Pelosi, just like the tea-baggers trying to show their support for "democracy" by loudly shouting down voices they don't agree with - these are people exercising their "freedoms" and their "rights", but they sure aren't helping their case.

Mike

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying he should have been arrested?

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you wouldn't mind if someone showed up to a Palin rally with a sniper rifle and a sign that says "All idiot c**ts must die!", then? You'd fully support them in the exercise of their rights? What about if they show up with their gun strapped to their leg at the police station, blasting "Fuck tha Police!" on their stereo system?

All slightly different scenarios that require slightly different solutions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What makes you think YOU can pick and choose? You're in favor of the white guy taking his gun to a rally, but against the black guy exercising his free speech rights in his own home? Does that seem right to you?

And you cannot help assiging your made up positions to other's. Where did I state that I am in favor of a white guy taking his gun to a rally?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And can you please show me where I said the guy did anything illegal? Can you show me where I said he should be imprisoned for what he did? What I *DID* say - and what you seem unable to comprehend - is that actions like this, while they may be "legal" in the strictest sense, will be used to drive efforts to make them ILLEGAL. So how does that help?

Please show me where I assigned those positions to you.
Ever wonder if being belligerent to police might affect how those police act in other circumstances?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you contend that I should do everything under the sun that is technically "legal", just because I can? Is there no action that can be taken for which you would say, "Okay, that's not illegal, but it IS really, really stupid and probably shouldn't be done"?

You mean like arguing with police in front of your house? Did I not say that while not illegal, it is pretty stupid?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
My point is that this yahoo really needed somebody by his side to act as his voice of reason, someone to tell him, "This isn't helping." Just like those who are burning people in effigy, just like Glenn Beck saying he wants to poison Nancy Pelosi, just like the tea-baggers trying to show their support for "democracy" by loudly shouting down voices they don't agree with - these are people exercising their "freedoms" and their "rights", but they sure aren't helping their case.

Couldn't agree with you more. It's just different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:20 PM

According to "Hero", though, if ONE cop goes to one of these rallies and asks the tea-baggers to stop shouting and being unruly, and they persist, then the police are well within their rights to round up all of the tea-baggers on disorderly conduct charges and arrest them and haul them off to jail.

I wonder how many right-wingers would support that in this case...

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:25 PM

Quote:
What makes you think you can pick and choose which rights people are allowed to exercise and when they are allowed to do it?

And there YOU go making up positions and assigning them to me, when I've never advocated such a position.

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Where did I state that I am in favor of a white guy taking his gun to a rally?

Okay, so this is you NOT being in favor of that?

Quote:
Why not? Isn't it his constitutional right?

Quote:

Couldn't agree with you more.

So this is just you being a contrarian? You're only arguing not because of WHAT I posted, but only because *I* posted it? Is that what you're saying?

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:43 PM

Kwicko said:

Quote:
Well, gosh... I guess I should say thanks for lumping me in with "the nutters".

Just to clarify, I was not lumping you in with the nutters

I find your arguments well formed and logical. I realize PN is batshit crazy, but that doesn't negate my frustration at the fact that there are folks on the boards that seem to think asserting something is the same as making a well-constructed argument.

I am going to be sadly internet-free for the next five days, but I may come back with some interesting statistics

Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

*
People before profits

GEEZER

Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Someone walking up and down the street with a gun at-hand constitutes a threat, whether that person is a cop, a soldier, or a civilian.

It might be more appropriate to say: In your opinion, someone walking up and down the street with a gun at-hand constitutes a threat.

To some people, a black man walking up and down the street constitutes a threat, but that's just opinion as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:46 PM

BDN, since you're so gung-ho on Constitutional rights being UNIVERSAL and all, and since I assume you're a 2nd Amendment follower, let's look at another hypothetical.

Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Kwicko said:

Quote:
Well, gosh... I guess I should say thanks for lumping me in with "the nutters".

Just to clarify, I was not lumping you in with the nutters I find your arguments well formed and logical. I realize PN is batshit crazy, but that doesn't negate my frustration at the fact that there are folks on the boards that seem to think asserting something is the same as making a well-constructed argument.

I am going to be sadly internet-free for the next five days, but I may come back with some interesting statistics Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

*
People before profits

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Vixen!

Enjoy the vacation.

Mike

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:51 PM

"Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?"

Nope. Freedom, bitch. Thats the point.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
BDN, since you're so gung-ho on Constitutional rights being UNIVERSAL and all, and since I assume you're a 2nd Amendment follower, let's look at another hypothetical.

Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?

Really struck a nerve, huh?

I'm just doing what you say you do all the time. Try to make you look at something from another angle.

When I thought Gates should have been more compliant with the Officers you called me an authoritarian lapdog or somesuch. You said it was Gates' constitutional right to act the way he did. Does this make you the authoritarian lapdog now? Or does it not count because it involved Obama. Just thought it was strange that you were all for the constitutional rights of other's unless they do something you personally don't agree with.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:56 PM

"cars aren't designed to kill or wound."

Vixen, Mr. Nader would disagree.. Cars are designed to kill. He would say "negligence and greed" but I think he might believe as I do "Intentionally."

Why? Think about it.

Peace out.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?"

Nope. Freedom, bitch. Thats the point.

So I can count on you being right by my side defending me, eh?

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:56 PM

Quote:
Just thought it was strange that you were all for the constitutional rights of other's unless they do something you personally don't agree with.

And there you go again, making up positions and opinions that I don't hold, and assigning them to me!

Again I ask, can you please show me where I said this yokel SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to do something this stupid, or that HE SHOULD BE ARRESTED for being a fucking moron? You seem to think I want such things outlawed, or that I want a Constitutional Amendment that would make such quaint things as the Second Amendment obsolete. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I *AM* saying is that dipshit stunts like this - and make no mistake, it was indeed a stunt, and a damned stupid one at that - only serve the cause of the ANTI-gun lobby, and make it MORE, not LESS, likely that such a movement will gain a groundswell of support.

CAN you play into your enemy's hands? Sure. The right has been doing it for at least the last two years now. SHOULD YOU play into your enemy's hands and hand them victory? That's entirely up to you. But saying it's legal to do so doesn't mean that it's recommended.

And when one of these pathetic twits actually does pop off a shot at the President, you can pretty much kiss all your gun rights goodbye, and you can then sit around and cry in your beer about how "they didn't have to do that - they didn't have to over-react like that!" Me? I'd rather they showed a modicum of restraint BEFORE that happens, 'cause it's going to be far too goddamned late AFTER it does.

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:05 PM

Quote:
...cars aren't designed to kill or wound.

You really should tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead animals littering the roads of this country. I'm sure they'd appreciate your concern.

There are entire classes of firearms that aren't designed to kill anything but game animals (and aren't designed to wound those, because that would be cruel). They CAN kill or wound a person, but that's not their intent. Just as a car CAN kill a person - especially when used with just that intent, as has happened.

You're falling into the trap of "all guns bad" rhetoric. They're a tool for doing a job; nothing more, nothing less. And if I really am taken with the mad urge to kill someone - or SEVERAL someones - I sure as hell don't need a gun to do so. A car would do just fine, I'm sure.

Mike

PHOENIXROSE

Friday, August 14, 2009 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
But there's a big distinction between cars and guns: cars aren't designed to kill or wound.

There's another big distinction: the laws governing cars are much stricter.
1) You must have a license to own and operate a motor vehicle, and persons under a certain age are prohibited from doing either.
2) For a car to be considered 'legal' there must be a title, registration, and insurance on it.
(btw, this is not me advocating insurance for all things, I fucking hate insurance companies, I'm just pointing out a fact)
3) Several and various laws of the road must be observed while operating a motor vehicle.
Failure to comply with any such laws can result in tickets/fines/jail time.
For vehicles of a certain size or with a certain size engine, and hence less potential for harm, certain laws do not apply.

Now, before anyone decides my stance is anti-gun, it isn't. I've been shooting since I was twelve. My grandpa can pull a gun out of any nook or cranny in his home. I'm absolutely a proponent of the second amendment. I think a general ban on citizens owning and bearing arms would be wrong on every level. Such a ban would strip away the title of 'citizen' and replace it with 'subject.' None of those opinions mean I advocate a total lack of regulation on something that is deadly. Nearly everything else with proven deadly effects is strictly regulated by law, but the loosest provisions seem to go to those things that are, as mentioned, designed for killing things. Someone too young or untrained to handle a firearm safely should be restricted, until such a time as they can handle one safely. Someone who has proven irresponsible or less-than-capable should be restricted or severely limited in the ownership and handling of firearms. Just as you shouldn't be drunk while operating a potentially deadly machine such as a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be drunk and handling potentially deadly firearms. And someone behaving recklessly should, at the very least, be monitored until such a time they're proven not to be a threat. I don't see how anyone could disagree that training and safety is an essential part of operating a firearm, just as it is of operating a motor vehicle.

People were called 'traitors' for merely stating they disagreed with G.W.B. Honestly, what would the reaction have been if someone had ever been in his vicinity, with a protest sign referencing watering the tree of liberty with blood, carrying a loaded gun? Odds are they would have ended up in Guantanamo, and been seen to deserve it. The fact that this yahoo is being allowed to go about his business at all is a testament to how much more the Constitution is being respected by those currently in power. They're not insisting he remove or even unload the weapon, because it surely is his right to carry it. And yet the prevailing attitude seems to be that one of Obama's main objectives is taking away your guns. Well, it's not. And yes, this guy absolutely has the right to be carrying a loaded firearm. Yes, he absolutely has a right to protest and free speech. And yes, President Obama absolutely has the right to put Secret Service, police, and fucking snipers on him if there's even the possibility he'll start 'protesting' with that loaded firearm. Because I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't have a provision for shooting someone you don't like, especially an elected official.

[/sig]

KWICKO

Friday, August 14, 2009 3:59 AM

PR: Good points. And I would have no problem at all with a "graduated" license program for firearms, just as we have to various vehicle types. Change the stipulations from "May issue" to "WILL issue" on those licenses, too, while we're at it. There are still areas where you can jump through all the legal hoops to own a firearm, and still be denied your right to do so, because the law says that once you meet all these conditions, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) in your area "MAY" issue you a permit. Seems to me, once you meet the requirements, it's not up to someone's personal discretion; you meet the legal requirements, you get the permit, you're allowed to own your firearm.

What KIND of firearm? Well, that's where the graduated license comes into play. Here in Texas, if I take the approved certification course, I get to carry a concealed handgun on my person. I'd like to see that opened up a bit - one level of instruction gets you a permit to open-carry (a visible holster on your person, such as a hip or leg holster), another gets you a permit for a fully-automatic weapon, another for a weapons with a suppressor, etc. As it stands now, you CAN get these kinds of weapons without any special instruction; all it takes is a $200 bribe - er "tax stamp" - from the BATF. I was sorely tempted to pick up a silenced Walther .22 semi-auto at the last gun show I went to, for no other reason than "just because I can." I didn't do it, but I can see where a silenced hunting rifle could be quite useful. Apparently such things used to be not only legal, but their use for hunting was viewed as "being considerate" of one's neighbors (I'm speaking of "neighbors" in the sense of neighbors on farms; my grandfather's nearest "neighbors" were 1.2 miles away, and the nearest town to him was 5.6 miles, so we're not talking about loosing high-powered hunting rounds in an urban setting!)

Anyhoo, it would be nice to see such a thing. Meanwhile, if you ARE going to buy a gun of any kind, PLEASE take the time to seek out qualified instruction on how to use it - and how NOT to use it! I can't tell you how many people I've heard of who've been killed by "unloaded" guns. If you put your hands on a gun, it's loaded until you've ejected the magazine and cycled it at least twice, and THEN visually checked it again and locked the slide back (on a semi-auto, at least). If I never learned anything else from my father, I learned that in your entire life, nobody will ever hand you an unloaded gun. No matter what they say, it's loaded until YOU have confirmed that it's not. And no matter how many times I've checked it, if you point it at me, I'll disarm you. Roughly.

Mike

PHOENIXROSE

Friday, August 14, 2009 4:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
PR: Good points.

Thank you

Quote:
Change the stipulations from "May issue" to "WILL issue" on those licenses ... Seems to me, once you meet the requirements, it's not up to someone's personal discretion; you meet the legal requirements, you get the permit, you're allowed to own your firearm.

Agreed. They shouldn't be more restricted than motor vehicles, either. At least, not by much; I think a paroled murderer can own a car.

Quote:
If you put your hands on a gun, it's loaded until you've ejected the magazine and cycled it at least twice, and THEN visually checked it again and locked the slide back (on a semi-auto, at least). If I never learned anything else from my father, I learned that in your entire life, nobody will ever hand you an unloaded gun. No matter what they say, it's loaded until YOU have confirmed that it's not. And no matter how many times I've checked it, if you point it at me, I'll disarm you. Roughly.

That's just smart. Even if the slide is locked, they shouldn't be pointed at anything you don't want a hole in. If everyone handled firearms like that (i.e. how you're supposed to) we wouldn't have accidental shootings. That's exactly why there should be supervised training, an exam, and licenses as a result. It wouldn't be about 'restricting the right' ya know? Just safety and training. I'd say 'common sense' but that stuff is sadly not so common.

[/sig]

ANTHONYT

Friday, August 14, 2009 4:37 AM

Hello,

If I was patently secure that regulation of firearm ownership wouldn't be a tool to disarm me, I'd be gung-ho on helping to create some good common sense rules about gun training, purchasing, and use.

Unfortunately, it has been openly stated by the anti-gun camp that each regulation, limitation, and law is a baby-step towards complete disarmament. This doesn't inspire me to cooperate.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, August 14, 2009 5:01 AM

Quote:

If I was patently secure that regulation of firearm ownership wouldn't be a tool to disarm me, I'd be gung-ho on helping to create some good common sense rules about gun training, purchasing, and use.

Unfortunately, it has been openly stated by the anti-gun camp that each regulation, limitation, and law is a baby-step towards complete disarmament. This doesn't inspire me to cooperate.

Well, yeah... there is THAT.

And of course, there are those on the "anti-gun" side who will say, "Oh no - we'd NEVER try to take away your firearms" - but the truth is, they have indeed tried time and time again to do just that, by small and large degrees.

Now, PR, just to play devil's advocate a bit: Can you point me to the Amendment to the Constitution where it says that "...the right of the people to drive cars, shall not be infringed"?

Just sayin'. Driving a car isn't a constitutional right in nearly the same way that the right to keep and bear arms is. Odd that we treat it as a near-universal right, though - but things that are very specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, we don't have any problem trying to curb or take away altogether. Does that seem right to anyone here?

Mike

PHOENIXROSE

Friday, August 14, 2009 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Now, PR, just to play devil's advocate a bit: Can you point me to the Amendment to the Constitution where it says that "...the right of the people to drive cars, shall not be infringed"?

No, I can't. Of course, most folk were riding horses back then. They were also carrying muskets that had to be loaded one ball at a time, with the packing of powder and such. Accidental shootings in the home were probably virtually unheard of.
Things are updated with the times. Such as, for example, the common interpretation of the second amendment. Anybody here a member of a well-regulated Militia? I'm sure not. Doesn't mean I don't like mah guns. Doesn't mean I think 'complete disarmament' is a good idea, neither. Well-regulated or not, I do still hold that we should at least have a potential Militia

[/sig]

KWICKO

Friday, August 14, 2009 5:23 AM

Thanks for taking that in the spirit it was intended, PR. Just a little light-hearted ribbing, with a nugget of truth at its core...

As for militias, I'm starting to wonder if maybe we SHOULDN'T all belong to some form of a militia or other, self-formed and self-governed. As for what constitutes "well-regulated"... well, I'd say as long as it passes constitutional muster as the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, it could hardly be said that it didn't meet the standards the founders intended!

Mike

ANTHONYT

Friday, August 14, 2009 5:35 AM

Hello,

As an aside, I'm completely willing to settle for parity.

If the police have cap and ball revolvers, I'd be prepared to reduce myself to such. If they want to carry swords, I'll strap on a sidesword. If they want to carry truncheons, I'll fit myself with a telescoping baton.

But whatever they've got, I want to have, and the right to carry it, too.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 14, 2009 7:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

Considerin what the stuff COSTS nowadays, that's all too common, jeepers where the hell can you get 7.62x39mm at a decent price these days ?

Not that *I* need much, given how hopeless I am with a rifle, but ppl keep asking ME, as if I'd know ?

-F

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 14, 2009 8:08 AM

Mikey -

Quote:
I learned that in your entire life, nobody will ever hand you an unloaded gun.

It's loaded - and if it ain't, and you're not IN THE PROCESS of cleaning it, it damn well SHOULD BE!

An unloaded gun is just a fancy, expensive, and not very effective club.

Quote:
As for militias, I'm starting to wonder if maybe we SHOULDN'T all belong to some form of a militia or other, self-formed and self-governed. As for what constitutes "well-regulated"... well, I'd say as long as it passes constitutional muster as the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, it could hardly be said that it didn't meet the standards the founders intended!

You DO, silly man.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

"Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."

Clear enough for you ?

-F

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 14, 2009 8:11 AM

And one final notation, you know what Obama coulda done to REALLY take the wind out of that guys sails ?

Take two secret service goons with him, just in case, and GO OUT TO HIM, and tell him flat out that "this isn't helping" and express concern for how he was representing himself, and other law abiding people to the public.

They really missed out on a serious PR coup opportunity with this one, in so many ways.

-F

KWICKO

Friday, August 14, 2009 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

Considerin what the stuff COSTS nowadays, that's all too common, jeepers where the hell can you get 7.62x39mm at a decent price these days ?

Not that *I* need much, given how hopeless I am with a rifle, but ppl keep asking ME, as if I'd know ?

-F

Keep an eye on http://www.classicarms.us/

They've got lots of the stuff at $259/1000, which is about as low as I've seen it lately.

Oh, and since you're "in the know" on the Saiga family of rifles and shotguns, you should know that they've added the 5.45x39mm caliber to their lineup in the U.S. First rifles are just hitting the stores in the next couple weeks. Price is nice - $369 - and ammo on those runs pretty cheap still, at around $180/1080 rounds for surplus stuff. At those prices, a few thousand rounds of ammo and the savings pay for the rifle!

People have mixed opinions on the efficacy of the 5.45 round (weight, impact energy, ballistics), but for my purposes, it would be just fine. Hell, at this point I wish that Saiga would bring in a .22, with everything else set up the same as their other rifles. It would be great for practice and training, since you could actually afford to do those things with a .22... I've been considering a WASR-22 for just that reason.

Mike

KWICKO

Friday, August 14, 2009 1:02 PM

Frem:

Check this out:

http://www.centerfiresystems.com/AM762100.aspx

Lowest I've seen in a while. Still too high, though. But at least it's TRYING to come down a bit. My bet is it really won't go much lower, unfortunately. Kinda like when gas went from under $2 a gallon to over $4 in a month - and when it came back down to $2.40, we were glad to have it.

Sucks, huh?

I've had good luck finding deals at these two places:

http://gun-deals.com/index.php

and

http://www.ammoengine.com/

Although for some damn reason, ammoengine.com seems to be down right now, which really bites, because they seem to cast a wider net and catch more deals.

7.62x39 at $250/1000, or 5.45x39 at $150/1080. Seems like I might be able to make a solid financial case for a new rifle!

Mike

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 14, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:
People have mixed opinions on the efficacy of the 5.45 round (weight, impact energy, ballistics), but for my purposes, it would be just fine.

I do believe Revy has some sound advice on that topic herself.
(WARNING: Language, Violence, NSFW)

Also worth noting Tuco (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly) had some advice which was probably even more appropriate to that situation.

AND

Interesting note that a Libertarian friend sent me GeorgeD's take on this whole sign and pistol moment...
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/kostric-tactical-mistake
and seeing the black banner on his site gave me a WTF moment, as Georgie WAS a Libertarian...

But apparently not any more.
http://georgedonnelly.com/asides/evolved-into-anarchist
And apparently said "Libertarian" friend has now hoisted the black banner themselves as well.

The more the merrier!
Ain't not a one of us quite as good as ALL of us!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Friday, August 14, 2009 6:10 PM

Quote:

Interesting note that a Libertarian friend sent me GeorgeD's take on this whole sign and pistol moment...
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/kostric-tactical-mistake
and seeing the black banner on his site gave me a WTF moment, as Georgie WAS a Libertarian...

Be sure to mention to your Libertarian friend that even a lefty loon like ME could see that one off in the distance, like Omar Sharif heading for the oasis across the desert...

He pretty much echoed what I said way up above - Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing. Kostric has the right to do what he did, obviously - and you can tell because he's still alive and walking around in a state of "not in jail". But his actions set the followers of the Second Amendment back a good ways. We were making some real inroads, too - gun sales are way up, even "liberals" are buying guns just because they can (and secretly aren't sure how long THAT situation might last), people who were actively anti-gun or at best apathetic are starting to actually think about things in a different light, and agree that if treated responsibly, there's really no reason a trained and responsible person SHOULDN'T be allowed to own a firearm.

On the other side, there are more people like you, Frem, who are starting to agree - out loud and in public, no less - that it really wouldn't be a bad idea to hand out some good training to go along with the purchase of that shiny new bang-stick.

So, while we were all on our way to somewhere nearer the middle, somewhere off the edge a bit, along comes Shooter McHickoid, all bluster and balls, hollering "Look at me, ever'body! Look what I can do! Yeeeeeeeeeeeee-HAWWWWW!" and potentially screwing it up for everybody. Right now, the Brady bunch are glad-handing each other and shaking each other's dicks all around this nation, congratulating themselves on having a moment that makes otherwise-rational people look at the TV and say, "You know, that shit just ain't right..."

This dolt is going to cost you and me money, along with anyone who believes in gun rights and responsible gun ownership and NOT waving the damn thing around just because it's illegal to wag your dick in public. Now *I* am going to have to give money to the NRA and other lobbying groups just to counteract the bad press Douchey McPistol-hand netted us.

Okay, I feel better...

Mike

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:28 AM

Ehh,

Eff the NRA, buncha weak-kneed quisling milquetoast sumbitches more interested in stroking each others egos and not upsetting anyone than getting the job done - and in the end about as "effective" in defending our rights as the AARP is at "representing" seniors - just like the AARP handed them over on a plate to Big Pharma and the Healthcare Industry, the NRA hands us over on a plate by helping *write* and then supporting the very crap they're trying to work against claiming that if they don't, whatever else comes along will be worse ?

Oh fekkin PLEASE, while they're busy goin around trying to sell the masters a gentler whip to hit us with, WE are the ones who wanna take the damn thing away and break it over our knee.
http://www.jpfo.org/
I might not like their religion, most certainly hate the State founded on it, but one thing's for damn sure, Jewish folk know full and well what the end RESULT of handing over that right is.

L. Neil Smith issues a blistering account of NRA collaboration here.
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-friends-like-nra.htm

And a right damned good look at the matter from a fundamental perspective that contains probably the clearest, most concise explanation of the very CONCEPT at hand, as well.
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm

So, piss on the NRA, doesn't matter how much money they got if they're unable or unwilling to rock the boat with it, and while they're not, the JFPO *is*.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:53 PM

Good call, Frem. Sadly, the NRA is the one that gets the attention, though. But that's not to say that JPFO wouldn't make better use of the money...

Mike