Comments
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.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
But I bet you were hoping; I was.
you bring up a good point. I've wondered for some time now, because it's a popular insult, how small does a penis have to be before it is called small. And just for curiosity, how small are some of the smallest penises? You can provide a jpeg too if you want. Thanks
So if the fear of guns cult can't repeal the 2nd Amendment, the right to public protest is where they'll attack next? Occupy and socialist protest marches good, everyone else who does it is a 'nutjob'? Well done Lefties, keep the hypocrisy coming.
I have a fond memory of a classmate saying exactly that in middle school. He was quite the class clown, he was.
Sure is. The Occupy morons got their asses kicked in a dozen cities by armed people. Gee, could the writes of our constitution have possibly foreseen something like that happening? Naaahhhhhh.
The last thing we need is anyone mistaking who the NRA is and what they do because of this aberrant blog post pointing out that open carry is fucked up. Kudos to the NRA for the clarification: those kooks with "7.62 tactical long guns" (that's P.C. for assault rifle) in Chipolte are the NRA.
Those law abiding American citizens exercising their right to protest through peaceful assembly are gun owners, and as such are represented in part by organizations which seek to promote firearm safety, and educate the general public about firearms in their historic and civil rights context.
- Fixed that for you. No charge, you're welcome.
You forgot to include "and which receives a significant portion of its funding from firearms manufacturers with a vested interest in selling as many firearms as possible."
Seriously, if you're going to go around fixing things, make sure you actually FIX them, m'kay?
Stop pretending that they are doing anything helpful in advancing the image of gun owners as rational human beings. You're just doing it to wind people up, and in the process reinforcing the idea that all gun owners are assholes.
Yeah, fair enough. The important issue for me is that the Left continues to be a mass of hypocrisy and intolerance. It's legal to openly carry a rifle in Texas. It's illegal to openly carry a handgun in Texas. These people took an action to highlight that issue which works equally well for both sides of the gun control argument. The demonization of entire classes of Americans really isn't a good way for anyone to approach the issue, let alone a political group which routinely claims the moral high ground.
A gun is not a toy, so try acting like an adult, and responsible enough to own one.
There's always going to be tension between those of different beliefs. I don't find it inherently irresponsible or childish to carry a firearm, whether openly or covertly.
If you can't exercise a civil right, does it exist?
If you want to change the civil rights we have, is hysteria, fear, hypocrisy, and intolerance the way to go about achieving that goal?
People who want every one to know that they are armed make every public interaction they have about the gun, and that is rude,and confrontational, and yes, makes non gun owners wonder what the fuck is being compensated for.
With mass shootings happening on a regular basis, if I saw a bunch of guys not in uniform headed my way with exposed weapons I would call the police and run for cover. I should NOT have to do that in America. These are NOT responsible gun owners.
If you have an irrational fascination of the penis size of completely anonymous strangers on the internet, of unknown age, race, national origin, ethnicity, actual gun ownership, GENDER (ffs!), then you might be telegraphing more about yourself than you'd like to admit and that we really want to know.
so yeah.. i'll cop to hysteria, fear and intolerance.sure.
And you giant man-babies fucking lose your shit like we're on a greased slope to Stalin's Russia, even though, as 5280 often points out, GUNS ALREADY WON.
"You are exactly the kind of sub-normal moron who should never be permitted to hold a gun, much less own one. Why is it so important to you that mentally ill people have the right to murder your children?"
Riiight because that's what ALL gun owners want. We want the right of the completely unhinged to murder our own children. Thanks for distilling the argument to this quite exquisite gem. That's ME shut up, and no mistake!
You are exactly the kind of sub-normal moron who should never be permitted near a keyboard.
Again with ignoring the facts and fear mongering.
"I can't think of one reason to have a weapon out of a closed (and preferably locked) bag or case unless it is actively being used."
I'm sure you can think of several good reasons, should you choose to be honest.
"With mass shootings happening on a regular basis, if I saw a bunch of guys not in uniform headed my way with exposed weapons I would call the police and run for cover."
By all means, do so. You can certainly find plenty of members in the fear of guns cult who will pat you on the back and award cool points for such an action. Or you could not buy into sensationalism and fear. Your choice.
"@26 well..yeah..guns scare me because they're used to maim and kill people....?"
This reveals more about you than anything you could put on gun owners.
In fact a good half of the comments about Teh Guns from the Gun Death Fetish Cultists fall into this category.
Completely pants-pissing, ZOMG hysteria.
Tell me, do you lose your shit when you pass by a uniformed cop? If not, why not?
"the "Fear of Guns Cult" (you have to capitalize it if you want that to make any sense)"
Good point, will do.
"is NOT trying to repeal the 2nd"
The ones who are brave enough to be honest about it are. Dan Savage (among many others) doesn't hesitate to admit he wants the 2nd Amendment repealed.
"you giant man-babies fucking lose your shit like we're on a greased slope"
You are accusing others of immaturity, with *that* statement? I'll reiterate an earlier statement of my own - the Left continues to be a mass of hypocrisy and intolerance.
""With shootings sensationalized on a regular basis"
FIFY.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…
from 2007-2011, less than 400 deaths a year by Rifles of ANY kind, HALF the number of deaths from Fists, Feet, Hands for the same years.
Ever feel like you're being manipulated?
Well stated!
Highlighting for those that don't see unregistered comments...
"@32 Thats because you people only managed to pass assault weapon bans in 3 deep blue east coast states and decided to dial back your efforts to UBC after your real objective was exposed and given a fatal blow on the federal level. You were defeated by 20 votes on the senate level and you would have probably had a 70 or 80 vote deficit on the house level. Now quit pretending like the lot of you dont actually want to ban handguns and institute European rules. We dont believe you anyway. Elliott Rodger, James Holmes, Naveed Haq, that Cafe Racer guy, Jared Loughner, Aaron Alexis, and others ALL PASSED a NICS background check, and UBC would have done NOTHING for the cases you lying scum keep using to justify your campaign. And if I-594 passes, it will do NOTHING to stop the next massacre, which you will promptly use to...do what exactly, push for another ban?Colonoscopies for gun purchasers? The point is you're not going to go away. Ever. So we have no reason at all to cede any ground to you, do we?"
"If you can't exercise a civil right, does it exist?"
No, it would not exist.
There are always people who want to take away the rights of others.
The excuses vary but their behavior is the same.
Wouldn't you give up your rights in order to make other people who cannot raise themselves above personal insults happy?
I am all for responsible gun ownership in this country. But people bringing weapons into businesses are NOT responsible.
@38: You're SO right. That guy in California killing 6 people, that was SENSATIONAL! Or the guy that killed all those kids in Sandy Hook? SENSATIONAL! Weapon fetishists are a problem in this country. As are you.
FIFY
I mean, we certainly don't assume that people who walk into buinessess carrying homemade bombs, or with dynamite strapped around their chests, intend to blow us up, do we?
What would happen if I walked into a Starbucks carrying a loaded crossbow? Wouldn't people kinda freak out and assume I intended to shoot somebody with it?
Deterrent. "I think I'll go rob that lady... Oh, shit never mind. Uhhh good evening ma'am. Bye."
There you go.
@42
So... Your method of combatting a charge of sensationalism is to use highly sensationalized, extremely rare events as examples? Possibly because actual gun violence statistics don't fit your sensationalized narrative of fear?
"people bringing weapons into businesses are NOT responsible. "
This sounds like more irrational fear and paranoia. Could you elaborate? I'm not seeing how bringing a gun to a business is inherently irresponsible.
"it's totally ridiculous to assume that somebody who walks into a place of business obviously carrying a gun intends to use that gun to hurt innocent people."
I agree, well said. Good job on not buying into the fear and paranoia of the Fear Of Guns Cult. Someone who had bought into that kind of irrational sensationalism probably would have brought up some idiotic comparison to terrorist bombers next.
Oops, did I stray off the script? Hit a nerve there didn't we Bolshie? :)
"I am all for responsible gun ownership in this country."
The FUCK you do. LIAR.
"@38: You're SO right. That guy in California killing 6 people, that was SENSATIONAL! Or the guy that killed all those kids in Sandy Hook? SENSATIONAL! Weapon fetishists are a problem in this country. As are you"
Well it obviously works on low-info tools like you, no?
Let's Recap (because it makes you look stupid):
for 2007-2011
Rifles 453 380 351 367 323
hands, fists, feet 869 875 817 769 728
You want to completely shut down the conversation, like a fart in an elevator? Try advocating for the only logical endgame that all "gun control advocates" should agitate for:
A complete ban of civilian ownership of ALL firearms. No rifles, shotguns, handguns or ammo. Pellet guns regulated as FFL items as in UK and Canada.
Only the police, military active and retired get to keep firearms, because that's worked out so peachy around the world and throughout history, no?
Oh and let's not leave out VIPs - celebrities, and favored political friends - to be granted special exemptions.
Have the courage of your convictions hoplophobes and Commies! BAN THEM ALL, and fight a War On Guns. Its for the children!!!
I've been hawking this around here a while and not one response that I'm aware of.
@47: Wow, that doesn't even make a lick of sense. But nice try.
As to your statistics... how many Americans have rifles? How many have hands fists and feet? So what are the percentages of deaths caused by those means?
Nice try. You lose again.
You're hugging the stuffing out of that Straw Man of yours, and you appear to be mostly interested in being a provocative dillweed.
@46: You're doubling down. It is entirely rational to be alarmed by a group of armed men entering a suburban restaurant.
If guns are not inherently alarming, then your example to @42 holds no water as they would not be a deterrent. Certainly not to another armed person such as some one who robs ladies is likely to be.
Open carry activists are being attention seeking prats, and do nothing to advance the cause or public image of gun owners.
Stop defending them.
Arguing petty semantics while trying - and failing - to outrun reality i.e. your total refusal to face the fact that the likelihood of being in a multiple victim shooting is infinitesimally small
I lose?! No I don't win or lose, tosser. It's you who look like a deranged manipulated sheep, in the face of cold hard facts. Life must suck to be living in constant fear of something that is less statistically probable than being struck by lightning (yes, go look it up)
And way to double down on dumb with a frankly ridiculous and pedantic counter about the proportionality of American guns vs American limbs - are you fucking serious?!! Really?!!
If that's "losing" I'll take that EVERY time, laughing.
"If you are having dinner or shopping for grout, your attention is not on your firearm. That is not responsible."
Why would my attention need to be constantly dedicated to a chunk of steel secured into a sturdy leather holster or slung across my body? Are we back to irrational fear of guns again? Your pathological fear of firearms doesn't make a gun carrier an irresponsible person.
"Read up on all the accidental shooting injuries and deaths"
You might want to do that yourself. 2005 through 2010 saw about 3,800 unintentional shooting deaths. Care to compare that to car accidents, accidental poisonings, power tool accidents, drowning, or choking? Here's a hint, every one of the aforementioned kills a lot more people. Accidental shooting is way down the list of accidental killers. Notice that most of these deaths in all categories happen at home, not while out and about.
Accidental firearm injuries and deaths are at a 20 year low, along with gun related violence and murder. During that period of time, what organization spent more than any other on gun safety outreach and training? Somehow the Fear Of Guns Cult always forgets to mention that, or place the numbers in context.
You brought it up! These are YOUR numbers! I'm just pointing out that your numbers actually prove MY point. You gun fetishists have one big problem making your arguments: you just look like fools. Keep talking.
"@50: No response huh? Well here's one for you.
You're hugging the stuffing out of that Straw Man of yours, and you appear to be mostly interested in being a provocative dillweed."
I've followed some of your other posts, and that is really beneath you.
And if you want to brawl with the grown ups, it helps to be familiar with the terms one bandies about. Strawman? I don't think that word means what you think it means dear. Go look it up before you make an arse of yourself again.
I don't argue for total prohibition that because I necessarily accuse all gun grabbers of working for total prohibition - and you'd have to be blind and stupid not to realize that some quite obviously are - but because that is what they should be campaigning for if they weren't so dishonest, hypocritical and frankly quite ignorant. Discern the difference.
Firearms owners across the country including hundreds of thousands of non-compliers in NY and CT have stated "Fuck You, come and take them". It's only fair that the gun grabbers be honest about what they want.
If you'd read any of the posts where I've posited this position - the ONLY honest and honorable position, if you REALLY want to attempt to reduce gun deaths to zero - you'll have noticed that this is a position taken by the editor of this publication, so you can go call him a provocative dillweed too in that case.
Oh I will my dear :)
"Life must suck to be living in constant fear of something that is less statistically probable than being struck by lightning (yes, go look it up)"
I repeat: Guns in America are here to stay.
Your Straw Man is pretending that people who want mechanisms in place to prevent people who are manifestly unsuited to own a deadly weapon want total prohibition.
The fact that you think 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 more of an emphasis on the responsibility of gun ownership rather than just the right.
We're not talking about hunting country here, we are talking about suburbs and urban areas. Fuck NYC has stop and frisk, which you 2nd amendment nut jobs should be far more upset with. But some yahoo walking down a strip mall in suburban Texas is cool? Is all good. FUCK THAT.
Walk down my city street openly carrying a gun I'm not only calling the cops I want your ass put down HARD.
And yes believe it or not I own both a hand gun and a rifle. Duly registered.
Given the level of invective and hate, it's more surprising that everyone hasn't turned their history off. Are you really going to compare anyone else on these forums to our resident stormfront 'turfer over that?
Just use a google advanced search if you're really curious. I believe articles, comments, and user activity are all crawled. The Stranger does use Google custom search for their site search after all.
Now go buy some US history books and some world history books, and give us a 3 page report on why that's a really bad idea, and how the general knowledge that yours is a really bad idea has helped the US over the last 200 years.
I'm not talking about a small town in hunting country somewhere, where there a reasonable expectation that you were just out hunting and are walking home. I'm talking about the example at hand, your dumb ass walking into a suburban Chilli's with a rifle for NO FUCKING GOOD REASON.
Sorry, I hadn't noticed your username. Obviously, among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised. Since we want that to be a universal populist condition, clearly only 'they' should be armed. And I've got $100 against Webers' bitch ass vs. you name it :D
Stop pretending guns are not dangerous enough to be alarmed by, and stop defending the douche balloons who are carrying openly in suburban settings specifically to be alarming.
"TC, Machiavelli was framed is a gun owner."
Anyone can claim anything on the internet.
But his posts indicate that he is not.
"Your dumb ass walking through a major city downtown public square openly carrying an assault rifle is a threat to that and needs to be put down."
How many times has the difference between "assault rifle" and the political term "assault weapon" been covered here?
How many times has it been pointed out that an "assault weapon" refers to cosmetic features and not functionality?
Why is he making that mistake?
Because he knows nothing about guns.
"I do love how gun fetishists can't believe that responsible gun owners can exist."
I do not know who those "gun fetishists" are.
Can you provide links to them?
Or is it a strawman that you want to beat on?
But if you talk to people who do own guns they will tell you about the 100 million responsible people who do own guns who are not committing crimes with them.
"I, as you know am a gun owner, but I have no interest whatsoever in long arms for example, so you could line up any number of rifles in front of me and I couldn't tell you which from which."
No, I do not know that.
I know that you have claimed that.
But since this was not about visually identifying an "assault rifle" from an "assault weapon" that does not matter.
What matters is that he is making the same specific mistake that has been corrected dozens of times here.
A mistake that is characteristic of people who do NOT own guns and do NOT know anything about them.
A mistake that those people keep making despite being corrected dozens of times.
You're right of course, that on the Internet nobody knows for sure the veracity of anyone's claims.
A gun fetishist believes that if he is not allowed to be armed at all times, he is not safe ("It's not safe to be here—we gotta go," while another comments, "This Chili's is no longer the safest Chili's to eat at." -- from the open carry Texas video.)
A gun fetishist can't tolerate ANY discussion of improved regulation of firearms because of the bogeyman of the government taking his weapons away.
"A gun fetishist is one that takes a statement like @69 and all they can focus on is the term assault rifle and then use that to determine someone's ability to own a weapon, instead of the actual point of the post."
So you are talking about someone who does not exist.
That's usually referred to as a "straw man".
No one has made any statement on anyone's "ability" to own a gun based upon whether they know the difference between guns.
But have fun beating on that straw man and your personal insults.
What do you suppose would happen if a black guy walked into an urban or suburban restaurant of any kind with a rifle slung over his shoulder? Other then fairly_unbalanced pissing his pants of course. Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public.
This whole discussion is stupid. "I'm not saying you can't own a gun, I'm not saying you can't carry a gun, I'm saying you can't carry a gun in town". Tombstone
Nor do I care if you believe I own a gun or not. Truth is the Colt SSA is locked up. The Winchester 30-30 is disabled (yes it will still fire with a bit of reassembly) and hangs on my wall. Target shooting was fun in my late teens and 20s but as I got older I got interested in other things. The only reason I keep them is they are family heirlooms passed down from my great grandfather. (no I didn't target shoot with those guns other then a few times heirlooms remember) I don't need either to safely travel the highways and byways of this great land.
(yes I know they are collector items no they are not for sale)
You'll want to say: "But @79! You said that Machiavelli was framed couldn't be a gun owner because he uses the term "assault rifle" instead of "assault weapon".
And he'll say something slightly off that topic, and you'll chase that rabbit, and then he'll introduce another.
It's called Gish Gallop, and it is his favorite thing to do.
I will leave him with some gun porn he can soil himself over. http://youtu.be/mJGH7cDFw7c
Explain to me why anyone needs a fully automatic handgun with an extended magazine (@ 00:37 & 00:48). It has one use.
"What do you suppose would happen if a black guy walked into an urban or suburban restaurant of any kind with a rifle slung over his shoulder?"
Why make a point of "a black guy"?
"Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public."
You mean when they brought the issue of police violence against blacks to the national attention?
Or do you mean something else?
Here's the Wikipedia link because you seem to be trying to imply something that you aren't willing to say outright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panth…
Again, why the focus on black people legally carrying guns?
The point was that you claimed to own guns but you don't know the difference between the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon".
Nothing about black people with guns until YOU brought it up.
Best to just ignore him entirely.
And yes you and I pretty much do agree on guns and gun control. Oh we might quibble a bit about the details if confronted with the task of actually writing legislation but nothing that would be a "hill to die on", as I used to say while chairing a committee trying to draft some actual local ordinance. (nothing major but damn the devil is in the details, and being Chair sucks sometimes since your job really is to referee the debate and you only get to vote to break ties. On the other hand you get to set the agenda, sort of, which is it's own perk)
What I do know is that if some idiot (black or white) walked into my local coffee shop with a rifle slung over his shoulder it wouldn't go well. And no one would give a shit about his "2nd Amendment rights". Not the cops who frequent the place nor the gun owners who do with whom I've discussed and debated gun control, conceal carry regulations, the use of deadly force and the castle doctrine. Open carry that shit is pure and simple aggressive provocation.
Yeah we'll let you go after we take your weapon, verify ever damn little thing we can find and you pass the the rectal exam. But until then your in the back of a patrol car and then a cell. Oh you passed all that and the rectal exam ok you can have your rifle back. Do that shit again, and the rectal probe gets bigger.
Maybe when some idiot decides to walk down the street openly carrying a gun in a Stand your Ground State and gets summarily shot dead because yeah that is aggressive deadly provocation. The gun nuts will begin to realize they've pushed things too far.
So there was no real point to your racist rant there?
"What do you suppose would happen if a black guy walked into an urban or suburban restaurant of any kind with a rifle slung over his shoulder?"
Why make a point of "a black guy"?
"Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public."
You mean when they brought the issue of police violence against blacks to the national attention?
Or do you mean something else?
What are you trying to imply about black people that you aren't willing to say outright?
Will you please, for once in your life, shut the fuck up. Honestly now is not the time, so can you try, just try, to be a little less venal, and small for a day or two? Can you do that?
You do know that racists to not regard other racists as being racist.
I'll remind you of his racist comments.
"What do you suppose would happen if a black guy walked into an urban or suburban restaurant of any kind with a rifle slung over his shoulder?"
Why make a point of "a black guy"?
"Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public."
As I said, they brought the issue of police violence against blacks to the national attention.
What does that have to do with this conversation?
Why specify black people legally carrying guns?
Or is he trying to imply something else about black people that he isn't willing to say outright?
"Because black people are treated differently in this country and to claim otherwise is ridiculous."
Yes, that is called "racism".
It is practiced by "racists".
Like the people who make statements such as.
"Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public."
What happened is that they brought the issue of police violence against blacks to the national attention.
Some people seem to be trying to imply that that was a bad thing.
Or maybe they're trying to imply something else but are unwilling to openly say it.
Why did he specify black people in his post?
Awesome.
I'll give you another chance to explain what he meant by his statement.
"Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public."
What happened is that they brought the issue of police violence against blacks to the national attention.
Now, you can either explain what he meant by that statement or you can continue to evade the issue.
Racists do not think other racists are racist.
Open the pod bay doors fairly unbalanced
I'm sorry Dave I can't do that. I have misread your lips in the pod and have determined you are racist.
That is 4 posts you've made without being able to explain how the racist statement you are defending is not racist.
You don't think it's racist because why?
Is it because you already know that there's something wrong when a black man is allowed to carry a gun?
"Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public."
What happened is that they brought the issue of police violence against blacks to the national attention.
And you have a problem with that.
And the idea that if those men and women going into the Sonic or the Chili's or the Home Depot to "exercise their rights" would have been treated the same had they not ALL been white is disingenuous. Which, again, we've come to expect from people like you.
Clutch your pearls FU, but we don't buy your act.
"Pointing out how non-white people in this country are demonstrably treated different is not racism."
Here, I will remind you of the exact statement made.
"Better yet go look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers started openly and at the time legally, carrying around weapons in public."
Those were BLACK men who LEGALLY carried guns in public because those BLACK men were being oppressed by the police.
Now "Machiavelli was framed" and "Lissa" seem to have a problem with those BLACK men LEGALLY carrying those guns.
Those two are not "pointing out racism".
That is what those BLACK men were doing.
Those two are implying that those BLACK men were WRONG for doing that.
And you three cannot explain why you have a problem with that.