Comments

1
I live in a Hollywood fantasy world. Paul, why don't they just make light sabers legal?
2
NRA just big liberal plot! They want to take away your guns too! Boycott all major gun manufacturers! Occupy NRA headquarters!
3
Yeah, the countdown to these gun nuts turning on the NRA for losing the thread starts... now!
4
@ 2 isn't far off. The echo chamber has emboldened these people to the point that they are going to regard the NRA as a bunch of liberal sissy sellouts.
5
Was someone actually carrying around a rifle chambered for 7.62 rounds, or is that just a rhetorical device? 7.62 NATO is used as a light anti-aircraft round, so the idea of someone carrying around that massive rifle is bananas.

Funny how the NRA tips its hand here. They know damn sure how hollow their own rhetoric is about more guns = more safety. Even they have to speak out against this lunacy.
6
Redneck logic: if the "dag gum libralls" are 'gainst it, we'll take it to some ridiculous extreme!
Reminds me of the explosion of new deep fried artery clogging tasty treats after "liberals" started knocking the typical American diet.
Way to display your willful ignorance, dicks.
7
It's bad optics. The NRA is a highly efficient fundraising machine and these small dick compensating fake tough guys don't exactly help the narrative. It's one thing to say Nancy Pelosi wants to come into your house and take your gun, it's quite another to be seen supporting these narcissists who think their rights trump good manners and common sense. The money guys in the NRA might be a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

Hey Paul, why no mention of the well written and nuanced article about the dramatic growth of concealed carry permits issued to women in WA state in the Times on Saturday? Or are you only interested in the story when it's cast in black and white terms?
8
That last paragraph is pathetic spin.
Can't you at least give the NRA an iota of credit when credit is due, Mr. Constant?
9
Barely a day goes by that I don't find a new reason to be thankful I don't live in texas
10
@8: We'll find out someday when credit is actually due.
11
@5, 7.62 mm is a .30 caliber bullet. That's hardly massive. Stop being an idiot.
12
The video actually is worth watching. Or not really, but that cute young woman insulting them to their faces at 1:22 is pretty freaking funny. And they're just completely dumbfounded by her. Goddamn imbeciles.
13
@8
One also has to recognize the brilliance of Mr Constant's internet lingo. For me, I never know when to use 'self-victimhood' and simply the plain 'victimhood.' I'm still unsure.
14
Open Carry Texas members are already cutting up their NRA cards and posting the pieces on Facebook. With any luck, that might break the back of the NRA's massive influence on Congress and get us some rational gun control legislation after all these years and unnecessary deaths.
15
@11: Well, I am sure it is not too big for your macho hands, but most people would consider a rifle that size being worn in an eatery to be pretty damn oversized, considering that the M16 fires 5.56/.223.

But then again, most people can feel safe without carrying around a semi-automatic weapon everywhere, but some people are just perpetually terrified cowards who may need to carry around an oversized death-dealing fake penis to feel adequate.
16
The White Panther Party goes out for casual dining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNGoiKr4…
17
This is just another instance of the NRA doing its job: deflecting the national dialog away from gun manufacturers, gun legislation and other restrictions on their business interests.
18
@15, it isn't much bigger than your average deer rifle. In fact, it's considered too wimpy a round for elk. And there are plenty of .308/7.62 rifles out there that are actually smaller than an AR-15.
19
@5/15: It's the same power (or less!) than the standard-issue rifle rounds used in the US from World War One through Vietnam. Don't be obtuse about this when there's so many reasonable arguments to be made against it. You're just making yourself look uninformed to those that know better.
20
Nothing screams "don't look at my penis" quite like bringing your AR with you to Applebee's.
21
Yeah, that's strange all right. I've yet to see one, an assualt rifle at a public place anywhere in the USA.

On the other hand, I have seen them in Israel and a few other countries. Soldiers and others routinely carry them (assault rifles, Uzis etc.). It was a bit intimidating at first. You can see them in markets and at bus stations. I did get used to it. It was de riguer and not all that different from the situation at Chili's. I spent about 6 weeks there working on a Moshav. Weapons were everywhere.

@7 has a point Paul. There was indeed a front page story in the Seattle Times which I read on the big increase in the number of women in Washington state obtaining concealed weapon permits. As I recall, the oldest woman was in her 80s. Curious why there was no commentary on that.
22
Hail the guns of the USA. Hitler, then his followers, would be ruling the world in White Race glee.
23
NRA membership information is stored on NSA databases!
24
#11.#18 #19 7.62 is extremely devestating to a human body. Are there bigger rounds? Sure. #5 is correct.
25
@19: So you feel people should be walking around with guns that are typically only used in warfare? This is the point, not that there are not larger guns one can find.

Call me crazy, but I do not think people need a gun comparable to what US soldiers carry into combat just to go get dinner. I guess we just have different ideas on what is excessive, and how much killing power a person needs in order to go to a restaurant.
26
The problem with responsible gun owners is that they are visually indistinguishable from irresponsible and psychotic gun owners.
27
I would also like to point out that while you are nit-picking caliber sizes and relative gun size (shocking), neither of you has responded to the actual point of my post, that it proves the standard NRA rhetoric hollow and clearly deceptive.
30
@27

Why, Teddy? Because they're saying a long rifle is a poor tool for self defense in small spaces?

You're once again showing your bigotry.
31
NRA rhetoric is self serving. That is the way of rhetoric.
32
@29: Pretty much.
Seriously, not picking about caliber? Who the fuck cares what caliber? The people at the restaurant?
I'd venture to say not.
Do you think the fast food employees who locked themselves in a freezer gave a shit if the long arm they saw coming through the door could take down a deer vs. an elk vs. a rabbit?
No? That's right, the answer is no.
Open carry "activists" are monumental douche balloons who get a thrill out of being transgressive. They are giant fucking toddlers that should be viewed with disdain, sent to bed without supper, and have their toys taken from them until they can prove they are responsible enough to have them.
33
@25: @19: So you feel people should be walking around with guns that are typically only used in warfare? This is the point, not that there are not larger guns one can find.


No, I don't feel that they should - it's irresponsible and it's alarming to the general public. I guess we all agree with the NRA on that.

You made it about calibers in the very first sentence of the first thing you posted. The .308 and the closely related .30-06 are incredibly popular hunting cartridges, saying "typically only used in warfare" is entirely dishonest. You say that's not the point, but then you double down on being intentionally misleading.
34
90% of the stuff the NRA and the gun rights movement espouses was considered scarily weird by the vast majority of Americans before the 1980s. We've all allowed ourselves to be manipulated by bought media into thinking the current state of things is a reflection of our history and heritage, but it isn't at all.

The world has been turned on its head when the idea that wanting extremely low grade regulation stuff like background checks is radical and closets full of paramilitary equipment is normal.
35
Hey! The cameraman's kids are half-black, just like the children of our founding fathers!
36
@28:

So, is it your contention then that a gaggle of gun-nuts walking into a local restaurant armed to the teeth with assault-style weapons IS "real dialogue"? Because that would be kind of funny, if you did.

And anyway, all this argument over this or that caliber seems to be rather missing the point. When confronted by such a scenario, the average person isn't going to immediately engage in a systematic examination in order to determine whether they're chambered for 5.56mm NATO-issue or merely .22 LR; all they're going to see is a gang of bullies displaying weapons specifically designed to resemble military-grade ordinance, and they're going to feel rightfully intimidated, regardless.

In other words, size doesn't matter.
37
Never thought I'd hear something sensible from the NRA - neat.

And if the best the trolls can do is argue about how *this* person-killing weapon is so much less/more of a big deal to wave around in public than this *other* person-killing weapon of a different size, we're winning.
38
I think if they all wear their "Don't Worry, I'm A Responsible Gun Owner and I Am Not Here To Rob Or Murder You, I Just Want To Order Some Southwestern Egg Rolls Without Fear" t-shirts everything would work out just fine for everyone.
39
@26: What a stupid thing to say. I am a gun owner, and know a lot of gun owners, most of whom identify as liberals, as do I, and not a single one of us would participate in, or condone one of these open carry clown carnivals. I know right? Mind blown!!
@28: There you go again. Oblivious that you yourself are the shining example of the position you mock in your post.
Oh and nice homophobic slur dude. Juuuuuust had to get that "lisp" dig in there didn't ya.
If I had a pin I would pop you.
40
@36

No. Try to follow this. If Baghdad Jim McDermott says something with which his adult colleagues disagree (in the vast majority of his toddler level comments sane people do, of course) it only makes it more worthwhile to try to engage the ignorant blowhard when he's occasionally rational.

Merely reflexively arguing isn't dialogue. Or didn't you know that?
41
@36 you beat me to it. Hear hear!
42
I've been alive for almost 40 years and I've been to a couple of Chili'ses (and two war zones), but I've never been in a situation where things would have been better with me carrying an automatic weapon. And it's not because I'm afraid of guns or don't know how to use them. Who the hell brings a gun to dinner? If nothing else, that's just bad manners.
43
Hey, look at @40, everyone - it thinks it's people!
44
@42, who said anything about automatic weapons? Nobody's carrying automatic weapons here (except possibly in your overly cvivid imagination).
45
Meanwhile I'll still be armed nearly everywhere I go, the people behind the counter just won't know it.
46
@33 Funny, just last night I was just explaining to my SO the phenomena of gun nuts trying (and often succeeding) deflecting the argument from whether we value the gun nut interpretation of the 2nd Amendment over lives and a stable society to whether the caliber of the bullet is accurately described. She doesn't spend a second in comment sections online, so she was surprised at the absurdity of the phenomena.
47
@40:

Sure, because as you constantly remind us, a "rational argument" is always comprised primarily of ad hominum attacks, convoluted circular logic, and generally meandering verbal diarrhea that no one but yourself can actually comprehend.
48
@2 - from your lips to $Deity's ears...please oh please oh please let this be TEAParty2 where the rabble turns on and kills the rouser.
49
@44, oh, I made the classic blunder. I used the inappropriate term when discussing guns. Or are we not supposed to call them guns, because that's what you call artillery? I'm unsure.

My imagination is not "overly cvivid" as you described it (yeah, us English majors can be bastards about technicalities too). I just can't imagine why you'd want to bring a rifle to a Chili's, aside from shooting the guy who came up with the idea of Chili's.
50
@44: Again.
The people at Chili's trying to eat their dinner would be unlikely to be able to tell at first glance, or indeed at all, if the the gun in question were semi or full auto.
Not. The. Point.
Stop deflecting yourself into a corner. Open carry man-children are making you look bad 5280, regardless of the size of gun they carry.
51
Jeez...that video...what a bunch of dorks.
52
@49 huh, what, wait, shooting the guy who came up with the idea of Chili's is an option? mmmmm maybe I will take my hunting rifle with me next time I go to Chili's. Wait that would mean having to go to a Chili's, never mind.
53
@49: I could not agree more. Chain restaurants are a plague upon this earth. :)
But even so, I too do not understand why some people find the suburbs so terrifying that they feel the need to be armed while eating.
I'm looking at you TC. Ya live Ballard. Not Beirut. :) But at least you have the sense and good manners not feel the need to ruin the mediocre dining experience of those around you, and bless you for that.
54
@44:

Again, whether the weapon is full-auto, semi-auto or not is irrelevant - people who openly carry large assault-style weapons (interestingly, when you look at pictures of these people you almost never see anyone packing a hunting rifle; it's almost exclusively AR's) into a restaurant or business aren't doing it for their own personal protection, they're doing it because they know it'll scare the bejeezuz out of the people inside. It's intimidation, pure-and-simple; there's simply no other point or rationale behind the action. If there were, then one would have to ask the quite reasonable question: "why did they just start doing this NOW, rather than years ago?" It's not like open carry laws have drastically changed recently (if anything, they've tended to become less restrictive, not more), but for some reason none of them ever felt compelled to do this before, so it sure doesn't seem to be a simple exercising of their 2nd Amendment rights, as many claim.
55
@50 "regardless of the size of gun "

Well, sort of. Holstered handguns don't seem to freak people out so much, if they even get noticed at all.

Besides that, there are plenty of places in Texas that would have been fine with these guys, especially if they had been courteous enough to call in advance. I'm betting Big Earl's would host them :D
56
@53 Yeah, no interest in 'shocking' people. I don't get what these guys hope to accomplish besides verifying that the law on the books is still extant. For that purpose much less dramatic weapons would work just fine. /shrug
57
Christ. As usual the level of stupid on SLOG has pegged at eleven.

If a particular round is used for hunting elk or deer or warfare or what the fuck ever is totally irrelevant.

I can tell immediately that the right wingers in here are typical Chicken Hawk couch warriors and don't know shit. Particularly about combat. Or even hunting for that matter.

An average Roosevelt elk weighs between 500 and 600lbs.

A Columbian White Tail deer weighs around 150lbs.

Golly, which one is more analogous to a human? And a rifled 7.62 is plenty big enough to kill either a human or a deer.

Most civilian gun shot victims are shot with hand guns in this country. And due to this fact most survive (6 out of 7 people survive).

This would NOT be true of rifle wounds. 7.62, 5.56, .223. It does't god damned matter. They are all rifled with a high enough muzzle velocity to create a pressure wave and cause massive trauma and cavitation beyond a surgeons ability to fix. That's WHY we use the fucking things in war.

So. We don't want MORE dipshits carting around more weapons with a higher kill capacity than we already do with handguns.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/08…
58
All the rhetoric here doesn't matter, @20 summed it up. People who feel the need to carry, open or otherwise, have issues. Whether it should be legal or not is missing the point.
59
So let me get this straight:

Yesterday one of the reasons the NRA is evil is because you thought they supported open-carry fucktards.

Today the NRA is evil because they told the open-carry fucktards to knock that shit off.

Got it.

The groupthink around here is as impressive as ever.
60
@59 No. The NRA is evil because over the last 40 years they went from a mostly safety and sportsman advocacy group to a far extremist rightwing Judas Goat for mouth breathing cretins.

The NRA is now the lobbying and marketing wing of gun certain manufacturers who want to sell non-sportsman weaponry to civilians to use under the false notion of "self defense."

And in the process creating a cadre paranoiac over-armed lunatics that they now strain to control.

Got it.
61
@59:

Except of course that the people calling the NRA evil today, are the same people who were hiding behind their NRA cards yesterday.
63
America's favorite pastime, demonizing people who don't agree with your opinion. Bonus points for hyperbole and invective!

I'm so glad the left is a bastion of rationality, tolerance, diversity, and understanding.
64
@33: Actually, I did not make it about caliber. I was imploring if anyone knew if the 7.62 remark was accurate, or rhetorical out of curiosity, and opined that it seemed excessive to carry around.

The actual point was the second part, as I mentioned.

But you know that already, you just need a deflection.
65
@61

Well, I'm not one of them. Open-carry fucktards have always been fucktards and I'll continue hiding behind my NRA card.

@60
"...gun certain manufacturers who want to sell non-sportsman weaponry to civilians..."

Oddly, the weapons you describe have pretty much always been legal. I'm of the opinion that it was the liberal push for bullshit symbolic 'gun control' laws like the utterly useless 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that helped start the current boom in sales of ugly black weapons.

Meaningless, toothless, symbolic feel-good 'gun control' laws piss me off. They also piss off a lot of responsible gun owners who all vote, both conservatives and liberals like myself. And that's the ball game.
66
@65 Strawman. They've always been legal - like cigarettes are legal - but not desirable or healthy.

The difference is back in the day most people were content owning a couple of deer rifles and a couple of shot guns for sportsman activities — to — amassing multiple hand-guns and rifles with large capacity magazines for delusional paranoiac self-defense.

And this was due to a concentrated marketing and political effort by the NRA aimed at rightwing constituencies.

They have now armed and nurtured a large population of entitled fact-challenged rightwing lunatics who want nothing more than to touch off some Red Dawn civil war. AKA Cliven Bundy.

THAT'S the difference. You dig?
67
@64
"Actually, I did not make it about caliber."

Yes you did. In your post #5.
"Was someone actually carrying around a rifle chambered for 7.62 rounds, or is that just a rhetorical device? 7.62 NATO is used as a light anti-aircraft round, so the idea of someone carrying around that massive rifle is bananas."

You were then corrected that 7.62 is equivalent to .30 caliber which can be found in hunting rifles.
68
@66:

As born out by the fact that the percentage of gun-owning households has steadily declined over the past couple of decades, while the number of guns per-registered owner has gone up astronomically.
69
At this point, it is about more than gun manufacturer money. Clearly, the gun nuts are an important cadre of shock troops for the right wing and corporatism in the United States (including that wing of the Democratic party which has actually worked to hamstring realization of the party platform). Their political function is highly beneficial to the political strategies of the point of the point zero 5 percent. That is why so many millions are going to be pouring into Washington to fight new regulations.

And millions will continue to be poured into media of all kinds to keep indoctrinating new gun nuts and shoring up the thinking of current gun nuts that they are victims.
70
This is just my 2 cents, but I think it addresses the very real concerns of both groups worth caring about, 1) people nervous that they will get shot, and 2) responsible gun owners. The first group is nervous because to the naked eye, the responsible gun owner with an AR and a lunatic bent on a aurora style killing spree look the same. That's reasonable and true. And the responsible gun owners don't want to lose the weapons they own because of worry about events they would never ever participate in. There are many legitimate reasons to own firearms, and that's reasonable.
In my mind, there is a middle ground. This is something I saw in Norway, where many people have weapons, and it is even encouraged by the government to have military weapons, since all people have served in the military and are trained with them. You can basically have any gun you want, but in order to own a firearm, you have to belong to a gun club. These gun clubs are everywhere, have shooting galleries onsite, teach mandatory safety classes, have certain mandatory meetings, and are how you apply for weapon licenses and hunting licenses. They are also collectively responsible for the guns registered to the club. Its this last part that has the huge impact. If a member of a gun club brings a weapon to a bar and gets drunk and shoots someone, everyone at the gun club would lose there guns for x months. No deer this year, sorry guys. This may seem harsh, but these gun clubs are amazing good at policing themselves. And good luck getting a gun if you're a scary nutjob loner type. If you cant find a gun club that thinks you're worth the risk, no gun for you. On the other hand, if you're willing to be responsible to the community, you can have an M-60.
71
Paul, in that last paragraph, you woefully overestimate the integrity of the NRA, and the intelligence of its members and supporters.
72
Gee, I wonder how all of the white people would react if 7 big, young black men and their token white friend with his camera phone walked into a Chili's one evening with their assault rifles slung over their shoulders.

I'm willing to bet that the staff wouldn't be so patient, polite and accommodating and that those women with phones would have been looking for another exit, grabbing their kids and calling 911.

White privilege sure does produce insane behaviors, doesn't it?
73
@66

So why don't you tell me what percentage of violent crime and gun homicides are committed with military-style weapons? (Hint: It's vanishingly small.)

@68

I'm looking at a Gallup chart that says the percentage of households that have a gun on their property was 50% in 1991 and 47% in 2011. That's not much of a change to me...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-r…
75
#5. You are incorrect. The AK-47 is chambered for the 7.62 X39 round. The FN C1/C2 FAL etc were chambered for the 7.62 NATO (7.62 X 51). There was nothing bananas about toting the FN C1 around on a daily basis during my stint in the Canadian Armed Forces.
76
Common sense rules I grew up hearing:

1. Always handle a firearm as if it were loaded.

2. Never brandish a firearm unless you intend to use it.

If you see someone doing something asinine or disrespectful with a firearm, you may conclude that they do not fit into the category of responsible gun owner.
77
@66 Oh for fuck sake. I'm not talking about "assault rifles" exclusively.

Thirty years ago semi-automatic pistols USED to be considered for law enforcement and the military. It was very rare - outside the 1911 that retired service people may have acquired - for them to be in common civilian ownership.

If Joe Average was going to own a handgun at all - and as a percentage of firearms overall handgun ownership itself was not that common - he was going to own a revolver.

Back in the day most people owned a couple shotguns and a couple of bolt action hunting rifles. They didn't clamor for owning half a dozen Glocks and SIG's to stave off some mythical invasion.

Look. You can't fool me. I grew up with guns. I hunted. My family are red-necks from south eastern Idaho. My father was career military. I was in the service. Guns were a part of life. in fact I have no problem with gun ownership. If you leave them home. When and where it's reasonable. I own a shotgun.

What I have problem with is stock piling. What I have problem with is when paranoid idiots carry them into the public sphere.

When I was growing up in the 60's and seventies very few people possessed any guns for "self defense." They owned them to use in hunting, for varmints, or for sport. People that amassed stockpiles or packed guns around them were considered losers and kooks.

This American Self Defense Gun Tradition you kooks cling to is a total fabrication. Invented from whole cloth by the NRA to sell more guns.
78
The Pelosi's and Boxers et al. would take everything if they could (semi automatics???), and have given rise to their extremist counterparts.
79
@77

The "Invented from whole cloth by the NRA to sell more guns." line was invented by anti-gun nuts as justification for gun violence sensationalism.

Gun violence is down, and has been going down for a long time now. Somehow the fear of guns cult members never mention that.

Why would you have an issue with stockpiling? The last time I checked it's pretty hard to operate more than one weapon at a time, up to a maximum of two. If some guy has 400 in his basement gathering dust, why exactly does that bother you? They aren't going to get out of their rack and start shooting themselves.

"in the 60's and seventies very few people possessed any guns for "self defense." They owned them to use in hunting, for varmints, or for sport." And we can get back to that point easily - by not buying into the sensationalism and fear around guns.

Can you think of some things that kill more people than guns? Do you see a cult of fear and media sensationalism around those things? Then why do you accept the non-stop FUD FUD FUD refrain from the anti-gun nuts?
80
Regardless of how one feels about the NRA, or private ownership of firearms, I think we can all set aside our differences and come together on one point:

Those two clowns at the Chipotle with long guns are irresponsible chuckleheads. I was over on Slate yesterday, and the pro-gun guys were calling them Neckbeard and Bro.
81
If some guy has 400 in his basement gathering dust, why exactly does that bother you?


400 guns? Depends on what they are. If they are bolt action or civil war era guns - I don't give a shit. If they are 400 high powered rifles and semi-automatic pistols with high capacity magazines, then I have a problem.

Because those can be used to arm 400 more dangerous unstable morons like you. Because those can be stolen and arm 400 criminals.

Because large stockpiles of powerful weaponry is no longer a statement of practicality or a sign of a reasonable or rational mind. It's the sign of paranoiac cretin on the verge of destabilizing society.
82
@81

So the basis of your argument is irrational fear and paranoia. Ok, thanks.
83
#81

"Because those can be used to arm 400 more dangerous unstable morons like you. Because those can be stolen and arm 400 criminals. "

Translation: "Because I say so, because I am a paranoid scared tool."

Here's an excercise

For the years 2007-2011, rank in order as cause of greatest number of deaths, the following:

Rifles (including "high powered rifles"), Shotguns and Hands and Feet

Answers here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…

Now handguns...let's say you have a point. Then BAN them. ALL GUNS in fact. Go ahead. Be completely honest and agitate for a complete ban on civilian ownership. Declare a War on Guns, and use the War on Drugs as an analog because that's been SO successful, just like it's predecessor almost a 100 years ago.
I've been trying to get someone, ANYONE to attaboy that one on this godforsaken site for a weeks now and all I get is
Why IS that?

84
#81

"Because large stockpiles of powerful weaponry is no longer a statement of practicality or a sign of a reasonable or rational mind. It's the sign of paranoiac cretin on the verge of destabilizing society."

Given that there are fucking tens of MILLIONS of military pattern semi-automatic rifles in circulation and that in any given year during the period 2007-2011 - according to FBI stats - that category of firearms caused deaths at HALF that of Hands And Feet FFS, how do you reconcile your obviously deranged comments with cold, hard reality?

85
It's funny when right-wingers hate-mongerers call their loyal followers and above all, customers, "downright weird".

The NRA just shot itself in the foot.
86
@83
Its probably because people dont agree with it. Maybe they just dont want to ban all guns. Why do you think they do? Is it more reasonable that everyone is keeping secrets?
87
@86 Gee, I dunno, maybe it's because every time somebody brings up the 2nd amendment, you people do everything you can to ignore Heller vs. DC and McDonald v. Chicago (which by the way ended HANDGUN BANS), and continue to cling to idiotic pre-2008 doctrine about how the 2nd amendment really refers only to the national guard and your average joe can only have a gun for hunting (because you magnanimously allow him that "privilege", right?). Or maybe you have been asleep for the past week or so and havent seen all the comments and editorials from your fellow liberals after the UCSB massacre. I mean, for fucks sake, there was an actual Op-ed in the LA times literally calling for a total gun ban. In this thread, some guy is calling for a state monopoly on the use of violence, which is just a metaphor for making gun ownership and self-defense illegal. I know you think we're all stupid, but we're not THAT stupid. We know you people hate guns and you hate gun owners. It literally seeps out of every pore with you, so why wouldnt we question what your real intentions are?
88
@83 TLDR; "YOU WANNA BA ALL OUR GUNS! ARAARRGGGLE!"

No. You can own guns. I'm totally fine with you owning a couple of guns. I own a gun.

What I don't do is pack one around like fucking paranoid lunatic.

What I don't do is amass and arsenal to prepare for some mythical invasion.

What I don't do is constantly jerk off and worry about how the commies are coming to get my guns needing more and more of them like some fetish.

How many Cliven Bundy's do you want? How many dipshit militia's do you want to see walking around packing rifles in the streets?

You want an entire society walking around branding AR-15's and AK-47's. Is this your fucking utopia?

Then move to Somalia.

Because that's what happens with you get extreme political polarization combined with a heavily armed society. You get a breakdown in the rule of law and get armed goons throwing their weight around. But. Then. Well. I've actually spent time in war zones.

Yeah. Move to Somalia. Or Congo. Or Afghanistan. Though I'm betting your open carry Red Dawn fantasies would be reserved for whites only.
89
@81: Because, as I explained to you in the other thread it is a Straw Man. You are pretending that those who want mechanisms in place to prevent people manifestly unsuited to own deadly weapons from doing so want total prohibition.
And as I also said, the fact that you think that that is the position "gun grabbers" should have is more about you trying to bolster your own position by ascribing a ridiculous criteria to those who would like to see more of an emphasis on the responsibility of gun ownership rather than just the right to own one.

Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of the position or argument. Straw Man.
90
@87 " In this thread, some guy is calling for a state monopoly on the use of violence"

That would be me. But you left out the word "legitimate". Not that I think you'll understand that distinction. Nonetheless it works like this. For a Civilized Society to exist the State needs to hold a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence.

Now we can bicker and argue over what "legitimate use" is, that is what political process is for. We've been working on that for 1000s of years now. But that doesn't change the fact that the simple act of forming a Government, any Government, any form or style of Government, necessitates the monopolization of the legitimate use of violence.

Whine, cry, and scream all you want it won't change the fact that without a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence the Civil State does not exist.
91
@6: I am a Redneck/Hillbilly/ Common Hill-folk from the state of Virginia. (The South-Western part, where it meets Kentucky and West Virginia) and even I think this is going too far. A pistol is self defense, an assault rifle is overkill. So please, keep an open mind to the fact that a small fraction of Rednecks know when enough is enough.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.