Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Here's One I Hadn't Heard Before...

1

Gun owners need to get laid.

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 3:43 PM
2

Gun-haters need to realize that whether or not it is against the law will not stop someone from shooting up a college campus. VA Tech was a "gun-free zone."

Posted by Chris | February 6, 2008 3:49 PM
3

can one be pro gay rights,civil rights,universal helth care,social serveses, a more just socity,expended democracy, enviroment
and
antiwar,anti racist wall, anti empire,anti corporate feudalism

while still being pro gun rights? I belive personal firearm ownership is our last defense against tyranny...and if you look at the numbers the more legal gun ownership in a given area the lower the crime rate....in fact I think it should be a REQUIREMENT for every citizen to own at least one gun and attend a free state sponserd gun safty and education course
but thats just hypocritical of me
I dont own a gun
I dont feel like Ineed one at this point in my life


if you support the bill of right then you should support ALL the amendments in the bill of rights

When you vote for democrats or republicans it feels like your chooseing which part of the constitution your more you feel ok whiting out

bill richerdson for v.p.
temper some of the more rabis anti second amendment tendencys of the front runners

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 3:54 PM
4

I guess as "pro-choice" must have "pro-life", "gun nut" must have "gun bigot". Now that's some quality political discourse.

Posted by cdc | February 6, 2008 3:55 PM
5

The parlance of victimhood is ubiquitous.

Posted by flamingbanjo | February 6, 2008 3:55 PM
6

To address last year's murder, why not start by disarming the scary ex-boyfriends of women students? Or just prohibit women students, because I think any guy willing to kill the woman carrying his child would go right past the "Gun-free zone" sign.

Posted by common sense is lacking | February 6, 2008 4:00 PM
7

In Washington, in order to get a concealed carry permit, you have to submit to a background check (conducted by the state patrol) and be fingerprinted. So to be a "law-abiding citizen" and legally carry, you have to subject yourself to scrutiny by the state.

I don't get what impact "gun-free zones" are supposed to have since, by definition, someone who shoots up a campus or hunts down and murders an ex isn't going to abide by any law.

Unless the only intended impact is for politicians to score points for appearing to "do something" about violence.

Posted by Westside forever | February 6, 2008 4:01 PM
8

Linus, I think "well-regulated militia" would include never giving a gun to anybody who can't make a sentence.

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 4:02 PM
9

linus, lower crime rates for dudes that own 50 guns in wayout, montana arent a compelling case.

also, how does a concealed trebuchet figure into this?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 6, 2008 4:06 PM
10

do you think all the original patriots who fought in the american revolution were as elogent as jefferson and old franklin? nope they were mostly boozed up yahoo's like myself who still understood the concept of opression and elietism (who were lator betrayed by the early american yuppies....the plantation owning class)

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 4:09 PM
11

regulating guns does as much to stop gun crime as outlawing marijuana keeps me from getting stoned on the weekends.

Posted by some dude | February 6, 2008 4:12 PM
12

@7 Agreed. I, myself, applied for a CCW permit this Friday and submitted to a background check and was fingerprinted. I hope to never have to use it, but I would much rather have one and never need it, than need it and not have one.

While carrying (legally) is certainly not something which is fit (or even a good idea) for everyone, to prohibit people like me from doing so does not make anyone safer. Quite the opposite, in the case that some crazy guy starts firing shots into crowds.

Posted by Chris | February 6, 2008 4:14 PM
13

"Way out Montana," eh? Yeah, Miami, Montana. Denver, Montana. Or maybe Houston or Dallas, Montana. All have seen a documentable drop in crime rates after passing "shall issue" concealed carry legislation.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 6, 2008 4:16 PM
14

Chris, what if you are that crazy guy and you just dont know it yet?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 6, 2008 4:16 PM
15

Can you imagine how countries like Iraq or Venezuela would have turned out if they had the kind of private gun ownership that we do? Oh, wait they are two of the most heavily armed countries on earth? And their guns didn't make them free? Or democratic? Or safe from crime?

But they do get to shoot each other a lot.

And of course all the gun owners here in the US didn't do jack shit when Bush trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The only thing they are willing to defend is the 2nd Amendment. The rest of our rights mean nothing to them. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that deals with penis size.

When I said gun owners need to get laid, I did NOT mean go another round with your sister. That's incest, you morons. And would it kill you to get to a dentist once a decade?

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 4:18 PM
16

@14 Bellevue, I'm not. I promise. <3

Posted by Chris | February 6, 2008 4:21 PM
17

I dont own a gun.....I can if I want to, I've just havent rally filled the need yet...besides at this point in my life I'm bounceing around from seattle to missoula to greeley colorado to austin texas every other month...and it seems like just to much of a hassel to get it legal in those states and all the states i have to go through
it's the pricipal of it
besides there have been cases of shootings on campus that have been nipped in the bud by students with guts and guns

also switzerland has one of the highist personal gun ownership to proportion of population in the world,canada's up there to....yes, guns kill people but they are not the cause...it is a culture which values status and image over life and truth that is killing us

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 4:27 PM
18

@15 - you realize that not all gun owners are republicans, right?

Posted by some dude | February 6, 2008 4:29 PM
19

Wow, such venom, elenchos. What has a LEGAL gun-owner ever done to hurt you (or anyone else, for that matter)? Other than to shoot Bambi, of course.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 6, 2008 4:30 PM
20

@15, ad hominem attacks aside, two of the most heavily armed states on earth are Finland and Switzerland. The swiss in particular, where every adult male is considered a part of the reserve army have assault rifles at home. Last I checked, Switzerland is one of the richest, most free, and democratic countries in the world. It is a gross oversimplification to claim that no guns equals no violence.

Posted by Westside forever | February 6, 2008 4:31 PM
21

@ 15 .....the reason the gun owners didint do jack shit about bush is because most people who exercise there 2nd amendment rights are right wingers....liberals tend to to try to distance themselves from gun ownership...which helps foster the shameful image of liberals being a bunch of whiny pussys....what the left needs more then ever is our own timmithy mccvays and violent nut jobs...remember all the right wingers blowing up buildings in the 90's? why cant we do that? we need people like that....I'm not saying I'd do that...I'm to busy, and kind of clumsy, bomb building or sharp shooting wouldint work out well for me

as for Iraq...I say it worked out wonderfully over there...resisting a forgion oppressor GO WOLVERINES!! As for the secterian killings...remember back in 05 when the media was trumping up the "el salvador" option then it convenitly feel into the memory hole...that is the "el salvador" option, divide and counquer

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 4:37 PM
22

@21 - +5 points for the red dawn reference.

Posted by some dude | February 6, 2008 4:39 PM
23

Right on, Westside. The shrieking anti-gunners also tend to conveniently overlook the fact that, since England banned guns, their crime rate has TRIPLED. London's crime rate is now double that of New York City. And guess what weapon is used in most of those crimes? Handguns.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 6, 2008 4:42 PM
24

you know if every citizen were required to go through basic military training...and we just kept the equepment mothballed untill the occasional readyness exercise or were invades we wouldint have to spend a trillion dollors "maintaining' our military....we could probably reduce to a quarter of what were spending now and use the rest of that monry to get this country back into shape...in health,education,social security and all sorts of things with plenty left over to put away for a rainy day

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 4:45 PM
25

exsuse the spelling...i should proof read before i post

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 4:47 PM
26

Westside forever, Saddam Hussein also required every household to have an assault rifle. How did that work out? And linus, you're just fucking scary. And Fifty-Two-Eighty, of course no legal gun owner ever hurt anyone. Freaks like linus are allowed to buy whatever they want at gun shows. And they will as long as male member enlargement technology languishes.

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 4:50 PM
27

Yup, Linus. Sort of exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. Oh, and your CCW permit would have reciprocity with those other states you mentioned; you wouldn't need a permit for each state. Look into it.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 6, 2008 4:53 PM
28

hey elenchos, have you ever fired a real gun?

I'm always kind of curious how many uber anti-gun people have ever even seen a real gun, let alone fired one.

Posted by some dude | February 6, 2008 4:55 PM
29

@28 Of course not -- he is terrified of them. His ignorant outbursts above are how frightened people react to things they do not begin to understand.

Posted by Chris | February 6, 2008 4:59 PM
30

Elenchos, I get your point, but the fact is that Iraqi's weren't shooting each other until AFTER Saddam and the entire Iraqi society descended into chaos, thanks to us. The exact same thing happened in Rwanda, but the killing was done--on a massive scale--with machetes and garden tools. It's not the weapon but the person that wields the weapon. Think about it another way--if Darfur villagers were as well armed as the Janjaweed, might there be a different state of affairs there now?

Posted by Westside forever | February 6, 2008 5:00 PM
31

@28

Yes. God you are retarded. Please, please, tell me what the fuck massive insight into genius of giving morons guns I as supposed to get from firing guns?

I'll tell you, it was from spending time with my shooting buddies that showed me what pathetic losers gun owners are. No joke.

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 5:01 PM
32

thank god we have hundreds of millions of guns everywhere in the USA -- it's what makes our society uniquely safe!

Without all these guns, why, people would suffer from all kinds of crimes and we would fall into tyranny.

It is well known that all across Japan, Europe and other places with tight gun controls, people walk in fear on the streets. Why, women are even afraid to take a walk downtown, at night!

And just look at the impedning fascism in the UK, Japan, and Australia! Have you heard about how their election system has broken down and jcakbooted govt. thugs have taken over?

It's awful crime and fascism in all those other places. All because they don't have the guns we do.

Fortunately a "handgun ban" or a "no guns in town" law would never, ever be permissible in the USA, under the original understanding of our various rights to bear arms!

Posted by Wyatt Earp | February 6, 2008 5:04 PM
33

And while I was in the military, too, since you were about to ask. That's where I learned to hate chickenhawks.

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 5:04 PM
34

@31 - you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too aggro today, dude. maybe it's good that you don't own a gun.

i was just wondering aloud, really. guns are like the great satan to some liberals, and i sometimes find humor in the irony that sometimes liberals can be as ignorantly intolerant of guns as religious extremists can be ignorantly intolerant of different races or whatever.

as far as "insight" goes, my opinion of gun ownership changed a lot after I spent time around guns. before I ever went to a range, I was totally in support of the notion that guns should just be banned. but when I actually learned how to use them, how to strip and clean them, etc., I realized that they're just a tool. They are not inherently moral objects, it takes a person to do that.

but whatever dude, you seem like you're a smart guy. i guess you just know better.

Posted by some dude | February 6, 2008 5:09 PM
35

Hmmm, that's funny. In 30 years of owning guns, I don't think I've met a single person I fekt uncomfortable walking down-range from.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 6, 2008 5:09 PM
36

#27
I dont really need one, i've had to face down the barrel before but I've always managed to bullshit my way out of it...generaly, if you dont act like an asshole you dont have to worry about being fucked with...besides i have nothing worth stealing, I'm poor and hang with poor people...the people whom gun control laws are aimned at controling...gun control doesint apply to police ,military private security or body gaurds...why should it apply to us? I dont need a gun but I'd defenitly like haveing the option...it's not people steling my stuff that concerns me...it's people stealing my rights, or trying to treat me like an inferior

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 5:16 PM
37

@34

Yeah, I know how you felt. Made you feel big, huh?

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 5:18 PM
38

I will admit that i am nuts...i see everyone discussing the pro's and cons of obama hillary
my favorite? mike gravel
he seems to be the most straght talking honest one out of all of them and the one who platforms represent any form of real "change"
of course I'm going to vote for obama simply because he hasent had the time to show how much of a degenerate,corrupt, slimy eel he can be unlike the clintons but I still feel a little shamned of myself that I'm just voteing for the lesser of the "mainstream' evils instead of rightiously voteing my conchiouse...the rightious will always be the persecuted,abused uber minority..laughed at be--littled and sent to death camps

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 5:26 PM
39

Yes, because hard-drinking, drug-using, drunk-driving, psycho-stalker, illegal-immigrant con-artists who steal guns to kill their ex-girlfriends will no doubt be deterred by the fact that carrying a gun on campus is illegal in a way that they aren't deterred by the illegality of stalking, theft, fraud, drunk-driving, over-staying your visa and murder.


This will just give the incredibly useless UW Police department something to do while not doing a single bloody thing including following the UW's own policies in how to deal with stalkers and then lying about the victim to cover things up. Stupid people will no doubt feel good about this law just as they feel good about taking their shoes off at the airport and not carrying nail-clippers and liquids on planes.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 6, 2008 5:29 PM
40

@39

Totally agree. We actually need more cops, and better, smarter cops. Except I see value in antagonizing gun owners. I don't mind guns themselves; my problem is really with the kind of people who want one. And you can't ban them, can you? But you can at least fuck with them.

Bored now.

Posted by elenchos | February 6, 2008 5:35 PM
41

elenchos @ 31


I'll tell you, it was from spending time with my shooting buddies that showed me what pathetic losers gun owners are. No joke.

Yeah, or maybe it's just that you hung around with a bunch of pathetic losers because you're a pathetic loser too. Birds of a feather and all that. So tell us elenchos, which branch of the military were you dishonorably discharged from?

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 6, 2008 5:40 PM
42

What most people don't grok about Canada is that it's not guns that are outlawed - it's assault weapons and handguns.

Not that you can't have one, you just need a permit both to own one and each time you move it from place to place.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, but you do need a license.

Here, we go nutso on this ... and the penalties for using a gun are pretty minimal in comparison.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 6, 2008 5:42 PM
43

by the way elenchos can you ome up with a resonable argument for dissolveing the 2nd amendment other then alliged penis size/ lack of sex? me thinks you may be projecting your own insecurities

Posted by linus | February 6, 2008 5:50 PM
44

@43 and what perchance is your reasonable argument for killing people ala Timothy McVeigh?

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 6, 2008 5:54 PM
45

elenchos @ 39


Totally agree. We actually need more cops, and better, smarter cops. Except I see value in antagonizing gun owners. I don't mind guns themselves; my problem is really with the kind of people who want one.

You don't mind guns, just the people who want them. You mean people like cops? Or are the more, better and smarter cops that you want going to be unarmed?

Bored now.

Does this mean that you're too bored to answer my question about which branch of the military you were dishonorably discharged from?

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 6, 2008 5:56 PM
46

@37 - it made me giggle like a school girl

Posted by some dude | February 6, 2008 6:31 PM
47

Ugh... I just got off a plane after running a booth at the SHOT Show for a week- Needless to say, the gun nuts were out in force, and I had high hopes Seattle would bring me much needed solace.

Disclaimer: I am not into firearms, and the company I work for does not sell them.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | February 6, 2008 8:08 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).