Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, January 5, 2013
News Saturday Morning News
Posted by Unpaid Intern on Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Posted by news intern Chelsea Kellogg
Big Quake Hits Alaska: A magnitude 7.5 earthquake hit about 60 miles off the coast of Port Alexander this morning.
100 Billion Possible Alien Planets! Go inform yourself! Or shudder as you read Vanity Fair trying to be funny.
Chavez Still in Havana, Venezuelan Power Struggle Begins: After further complications from his latest surgery for cancer, Chavez still refuses to relinquish power in Venezuela, despite a constitutional mandate. Party leaders begin the political jostling.
Cat Arrested in Brazil: It was reportedly smuggling contraband into a prison.
New Year, New Massacre Count: An armed man is holding hostages in Aurora CO. Update 8:55 a.m. Four people, including the gunman are reportedly dead.
Search For Skydiver Called Off: A skydiver who went missing after jumping from a helicopter on Thursday in the Cascade foothills, was not found in the second day of the rescue op, either.
Macklemore Wants to Run for Mayor: In the year 2025.
It's Wild Card Weekend: And the Seahawks will be playing the I-feel-racist-just-saying-their-team-name Redskins. Hawks are slight favorites to win.
Idaho Senator Pleads Guilty to DUI: Which apparently violates tenets of his Mormon faith.
1
"And the Seahawks will be playing the I-feel-racist-just-saying-their-team-name Redskins." Goddamn it, why didn't I write that first!
2
keep in mind, if you use the terms "nut" or "automatic" or misstate the caliber or type of weapon used by this asshole to murder 3 people and then commit suicide, every conclusion you draw is immediately invalidated.
love, the slog gun lovers.
love, the slog gun lovers.
3
Well, Max, since nobody knows the type of gun, the caliber, or any other details about this right now, you bet the conclusion is invalid.
4
@3
Don't need to know what kind of gun it was to add another data point to the evidence connecting gun ownership with suicide. Or with the escalation of violence in all types of disputes. But aside from that, trying to discount cases of gun violence that don't involve guns with specific features is just a rhetorical ploy.
The function of this tactic is to instantly shift the discussion into nit picking between gun nerds, so that everybody else will get bored and wander away. The gun lobby doesn't want anyone talking about guns because the subject can't stand the light of day.
The gun nuts are working so hard at this because they do not want the assault weapons ban to pass. The way you know they're lying when they put up complicated smokescreens about how it's meaningless, undefined, ineffective, etc is that they are so terrified of this law.
If the assault weapons ban was inconsequential, they'd ignore it instead of fight against it with everything they've got.
Don't need to know what kind of gun it was to add another data point to the evidence connecting gun ownership with suicide. Or with the escalation of violence in all types of disputes. But aside from that, trying to discount cases of gun violence that don't involve guns with specific features is just a rhetorical ploy.
The function of this tactic is to instantly shift the discussion into nit picking between gun nerds, so that everybody else will get bored and wander away. The gun lobby doesn't want anyone talking about guns because the subject can't stand the light of day.
The gun nuts are working so hard at this because they do not want the assault weapons ban to pass. The way you know they're lying when they put up complicated smokescreens about how it's meaningless, undefined, ineffective, etc is that they are so terrified of this law.
If the assault weapons ban was inconsequential, they'd ignore it instead of fight against it with everything they've got.
5
The number of planets is probably much higher according to the article. They only used a small sampling. And since our star is typical, why shouldn't there be vastly more? It's like were living on a molecule with the possibilities around us infinite.
6
Suicide? He was killed by the SWAT team. See what I mean about blathering on before you know any details?
8
I stayed up all night trying to get my parents, who are in Petersburg, to move to higher ground. There ended up being no wave, but the tsunami sirens went off and the radio station and police were telling everybody to move inland. It was quite the exciting night in Southeast Alaska.
9
"Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"
Go ahead 5280, go ahead Cascadian Bacon, go ahead, all the other gun nuts (I said it). Defend this. Tell us about all the "good guys with guns" out there defending us. Tell us how you detect when a "good guy with a gun" decides to go nuts and become a "bad guy with a gun".
Tell us how all these ordinary good guys with guns, guys that ostensibly need a gun to feel safe and protect their family, suddenly become "bad guys". Tell us how all these good guys, guys that like to own AK's, or SKS's, or other assault-style weapons and lots and lots of bullets become "bad guys with guns". And tell us how to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun.
Because it's pretty likely this one incident is just one more depressing domestic violence case where the "good guy with the gun" just couldn't stomach the fact that his spouse was leaving, or his kids didn't want to stay with him, or he'd lost his job, or all of the above (and more) and so he decided to take his anger and depression out on those around him. He became a "bad guy with a gun" with no practical warning.
This is why the "only good guys with guns can protect us from bad guys with guns" idea is just so much horseshit. And you know it. Because it's a tiny, tiny step for some of these "good guys with guns" to lose it and decide to shoot a bunch of other people up.
There are no "good guys with guns". There are guns, and there are people. And we clearly need to keep more of the people away from guns.
Go ahead 5280, go ahead Cascadian Bacon, go ahead, all the other gun nuts (I said it). Defend this. Tell us about all the "good guys with guns" out there defending us. Tell us how you detect when a "good guy with a gun" decides to go nuts and become a "bad guy with a gun".
Tell us how all these ordinary good guys with guns, guys that ostensibly need a gun to feel safe and protect their family, suddenly become "bad guys". Tell us how all these good guys, guys that like to own AK's, or SKS's, or other assault-style weapons and lots and lots of bullets become "bad guys with guns". And tell us how to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun.
Because it's pretty likely this one incident is just one more depressing domestic violence case where the "good guy with the gun" just couldn't stomach the fact that his spouse was leaving, or his kids didn't want to stay with him, or he'd lost his job, or all of the above (and more) and so he decided to take his anger and depression out on those around him. He became a "bad guy with a gun" with no practical warning.
This is why the "only good guys with guns can protect us from bad guys with guns" idea is just so much horseshit. And you know it. Because it's a tiny, tiny step for some of these "good guys with guns" to lose it and decide to shoot a bunch of other people up.
There are no "good guys with guns". There are guns, and there are people. And we clearly need to keep more of the people away from guns.
11
@6
Suicide by cop.
Suicide by cop is one of the things that responsible, sane people care about. Gun nuts look at the dead shooter and say, "Good, he's dead! And with acceptable collateral damage too!"
Suicide by cop.
Suicide by cop is one of the things that responsible, sane people care about. Gun nuts look at the dead shooter and say, "Good, he's dead! And with acceptable collateral damage too!"
12
@9 I like your point regarding the very blurry line - a non-existent line - between a 'good' or 'bad' guy.
That's a really solid point: all of us have the potential - the risk - to be either, or both, at anytime.
That's a really solid point: all of us have the potential - the risk - to be either, or both, at anytime.
13
The search for the skydiver was only called for darkness last night. It resumed this morning. Not a lot of info in the article, but the guy sounds like he's probably an outdoorsman capable of surviving a few days in the wilderness. Assuming his chute deployed, of course, which they weren't even able to confirm as yet.
14
I wonder how many victims a gun crime must involve before 5280 goes AWOL for a few days. Apparently the threshold lies somewhere between three and twenty eight.
15
American History 101: The Crucifixion of Hugo Chávez
NPR accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
FoxFiction accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
CNN accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
The ultra-rightwing skank tank, the Heritage Foundation, accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
Why? What sinister acts and minacious activities have been perpetrated by President Chavez?
The reduction of poverty in Venezuela! The fact that Hugo Chávez is an authentic democrat, a man of the people!
Such vileness should never go unpunished, especially since in the Western Hemisphere, where the mighty banksters recently had their bonuses deferred, as punishment for their long-term money laundering and aiding and abetting the mass murder, tortures, sex trafficking and human slave trafficking, and human destruction by the drug cartels (HSBC, etc.), humanist behavior of the sort exhibited by President Hugo Chávez must never go unavenged!
In America, we once had similar democrats as President Chavez: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and they died mostly by assassination, the exact same fate which forces in the USA attempted against President Hugo Chávez.
During the Bush administration, there were several coup attempts and assassination attempts against Chavez, always with the sighting in Venezuela of Otto Reich and his Cuban-American squads nearby. Otto Reich, Cuban-American assistant secretary of state, would thankfully fumble all attempts.
After the second, or was it the third (?) attempt on Hugo Chávez, the chairman of the Venezuela Chamber of Commerce was placed in the presidency --- an odd "choice" given that he wasn't even in the proper presidential secession, but then the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce is a subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce (USCoC).
Truly, the oligarchs, the plutocracy, despise the true democrat. They much prefer their smooth talking lackeys like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama --- even better their talking dummy sock puppets like the Bush family.
Go back and read the presidential inaugural speeches of John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and Hugo Chávez, and see the remarkable similarity of spirit!
I have not witnessed such absolute malevolence towards an elected official as we've seen from the "liberal" NPR's Tom Gelton, Rupert Murdoch's Foxtards, the criminal crews at CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS, etc., etc.; an orgy of obscenity directed at a true man of the people, by the people and for the people.
Viva Chávez! Viva democracy!
When Kermit Roosevelt successfully led the team which overthrew the Iranian president back in the early 1950s, the leader who had the audacity to nationalize the Iranian oil fields, redirecting the profits and revenues of Iranian resources to the Iranian people.
Kermit Roosevelt would later be rewarded with an extremely high-paying position at Gulf Oil (Mellon family-owned), the imperialists sometimes take care of their own, especially when they too come from super-rich backgrounds.
A history replete with the aggression and violence of the super-rich against those would deny them their blood money!
https://lh3.ggpht.com/-DsGhy_BQmd8/UMzcd…
http://www.militant-blog.org/?p=158
More...
NPR accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
FoxFiction accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
CNN accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
The ultra-rightwing skank tank, the Heritage Foundation, accuses the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, of being criminal and evil?
Why? What sinister acts and minacious activities have been perpetrated by President Chavez?
The reduction of poverty in Venezuela! The fact that Hugo Chávez is an authentic democrat, a man of the people!
Such vileness should never go unpunished, especially since in the Western Hemisphere, where the mighty banksters recently had their bonuses deferred, as punishment for their long-term money laundering and aiding and abetting the mass murder, tortures, sex trafficking and human slave trafficking, and human destruction by the drug cartels (HSBC, etc.), humanist behavior of the sort exhibited by President Hugo Chávez must never go unavenged!
In America, we once had similar democrats as President Chavez: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and they died mostly by assassination, the exact same fate which forces in the USA attempted against President Hugo Chávez.
During the Bush administration, there were several coup attempts and assassination attempts against Chavez, always with the sighting in Venezuela of Otto Reich and his Cuban-American squads nearby. Otto Reich, Cuban-American assistant secretary of state, would thankfully fumble all attempts.
After the second, or was it the third (?) attempt on Hugo Chávez, the chairman of the Venezuela Chamber of Commerce was placed in the presidency --- an odd "choice" given that he wasn't even in the proper presidential secession, but then the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce is a subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce (USCoC).
Truly, the oligarchs, the plutocracy, despise the true democrat. They much prefer their smooth talking lackeys like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama --- even better their talking dummy sock puppets like the Bush family.
Go back and read the presidential inaugural speeches of John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and Hugo Chávez, and see the remarkable similarity of spirit!
I have not witnessed such absolute malevolence towards an elected official as we've seen from the "liberal" NPR's Tom Gelton, Rupert Murdoch's Foxtards, the criminal crews at CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS, etc., etc.; an orgy of obscenity directed at a true man of the people, by the people and for the people.
Viva Chávez! Viva democracy!
When Kermit Roosevelt successfully led the team which overthrew the Iranian president back in the early 1950s, the leader who had the audacity to nationalize the Iranian oil fields, redirecting the profits and revenues of Iranian resources to the Iranian people.
Kermit Roosevelt would later be rewarded with an extremely high-paying position at Gulf Oil (Mellon family-owned), the imperialists sometimes take care of their own, especially when they too come from super-rich backgrounds.
A history replete with the aggression and violence of the super-rich against those would deny them their blood money!
https://lh3.ggpht.com/-DsGhy_BQmd8/UMzcd…
http://www.militant-blog.org/?p=158
16
@4: I think you're purposely mixing the words "inconsequential" with "ineffective." Your basic goal is eliminating private gun ownership, and your priority is making the current legislation a first step in that goal (because you think it will pass, and its value is as step one of the long march, vs. any near term effectiveness in, you know, stopping crime or suicide or mass shootings or anything else).
I think anyone who cares about gun rights is all too aware of the 'consequences' of your agenda above. We disagree with it, we're obviously not getting anywhere trying to talk about effectiveness, so we'll just work on blocking step one in your plan - again. You may very well be right that demonization and hyperaggressive legislation as step one will work. We'll find out.
Let me check my NRA sock puppet handbook and see if I left anything out - nope, that'll do for now.
I think anyone who cares about gun rights is all too aware of the 'consequences' of your agenda above. We disagree with it, we're obviously not getting anywhere trying to talk about effectiveness, so we'll just work on blocking step one in your plan - again. You may very well be right that demonization and hyperaggressive legislation as step one will work. We'll find out.
Let me check my NRA sock puppet handbook and see if I left anything out - nope, that'll do for now.
18
I love how the "gun control" baits the "gun rights" side and then calls them assholes for raising to the bait.
More importantly:
Washington: 23
Seattle: 20
Hail.
More importantly:
Washington: 23
Seattle: 20
Hail.
19
What is it about Americans that they can't actually tell what gummint tyranny is? Is it surveillance of e-mail? Sure. Groping kiddies and infirm at airports? Sure. Fingerprinting people who came from Iran to Canada as infants? Sure. Hostages, children, drivers, moviegoers, coffeehouse regulars? Maybe not so much?
20
@18 I love Seattle/Washington matchups. One of my greatest wishes is to see a Nationals/Mariners WS, even better if it's both their first time there.
But I gotta disagree. I think Seattle will win, gotta be a homer but I do think they're the better team. Regardless, RG3 vs Russel Wilson should be an amazing game. I haven't been this stoked for a Seahawks game in a long time.
Both Washington and Seattle look like they'll be pretty good for a least a few years, here's hoping for the begining of a meaningful sports rivilary!
But I gotta disagree. I think Seattle will win, gotta be a homer but I do think they're the better team. Regardless, RG3 vs Russel Wilson should be an amazing game. I haven't been this stoked for a Seahawks game in a long time.
Both Washington and Seattle look like they'll be pretty good for a least a few years, here's hoping for the begining of a meaningful sports rivilary!
21
Regardless of who comes out of the game, it's hard to see a rookie QB -- even one as talented as Wilson or Griffin -- actually outplaying Rogers or Manning (or even Flacco or Schaub) to win a championship. Experience is just too valuable. Agree it could be a wildly entertaining game.
22
An interesting passage from the MSNBC article:
That number of stars is just within our galaxy, and there are plenty of other galaxies out there. The total number of stars in the universe is estimated to be around 10^22 (if I recall the figure correctly from a fascinating Dawkins/Krauss discussion I just watched), not that we're likely to ever visit or receive visits from such far-flung places.
The team considered only planets orbiting close to M dwarfs; their analysis didn't include outer planets in M-dwarf systems, or any worlds circling other types of stars. So the galaxy may actually harbor many more planets than the conservative estimate implies — perhaps 200 billion, or about two per star, Swift said.
That number of stars is just within our galaxy, and there are plenty of other galaxies out there. The total number of stars in the universe is estimated to be around 10^22 (if I recall the figure correctly from a fascinating Dawkins/Krauss discussion I just watched), not that we're likely to ever visit or receive visits from such far-flung places.
23
@16
Good morning NRA sockpuppet.
I don't think it will pass. I think the Republicans will kill it. And then in the midterms they will have to run on that vote, with Sandy Hook redux, or Sandy Hook redux redux fresh of the voters' minds. Good luck with that.
This "never give an inch" stratgy is precisely what marginalizes gun nuts. Nine out of ten Americans wants to close the gun show loophole. Most gun owners want the same thing. It's only the gun nuts who don't see the need for this common sense step, and it is this nutty gun nuttery that's separating the gun nuts from the normal gun owners.
The gun nuts could thwart me by accepting a few common sense restrictions, the kind of things that a traditional conservative like Ronald Reagan would have embraced. This would reign in the gun deaths, and truly deflate the gun control movement. I'd be happy to lose this debate by seeing an end to the slaughter.
Because the gun nuts won't compromise, they will let this mayhem spiral out of control, which will lead to far greater gun restrictions than the likes of me could have ever dreamed of. A total ban on guns is something the gun nuts are bringing on themselves.
Good morning NRA sockpuppet.
I don't think it will pass. I think the Republicans will kill it. And then in the midterms they will have to run on that vote, with Sandy Hook redux, or Sandy Hook redux redux fresh of the voters' minds. Good luck with that.
This "never give an inch" stratgy is precisely what marginalizes gun nuts. Nine out of ten Americans wants to close the gun show loophole. Most gun owners want the same thing. It's only the gun nuts who don't see the need for this common sense step, and it is this nutty gun nuttery that's separating the gun nuts from the normal gun owners.
The gun nuts could thwart me by accepting a few common sense restrictions, the kind of things that a traditional conservative like Ronald Reagan would have embraced. This would reign in the gun deaths, and truly deflate the gun control movement. I'd be happy to lose this debate by seeing an end to the slaughter.
Because the gun nuts won't compromise, they will let this mayhem spiral out of control, which will lead to far greater gun restrictions than the likes of me could have ever dreamed of. A total ban on guns is something the gun nuts are bringing on themselves.
24
@21 but if there were two rookie quarterbacks who could it'd be either Robert or Russell. Of course I'm biased but watching Wilson get better and better is really fun, generally people figure out rookies about 2/3rds through a season and they have to semi-reinvent their play. Anyhow, excited about tomorrow's game. Today's are pretty snoozy.
25
I have to say gun-nuts are somewhat nutty that people who don't even take the time to do an internet search feel qualified to decide what's allowed and what isn't allowed, especially since banning something in no way whatsoever affects them or their pursuit of happiness.
It's somewhat off-putting to be lectured about gun safety and gun-rights by someone who knows next-to-nothing about guns and gun safety.
I'm not discrediting your points -- fuck gun-show loopholes and ginormous magazines -- but please quit turning your argument up to eleven and try having some empathy with the people whose hobbies you're attempting to outlaw.
Imagine how you'd feel if I told you I wanted to ban needles so you'd stop shooting up your filthy marijuana, hippie.
It's somewhat off-putting to be lectured about gun safety and gun-rights by someone who knows next-to-nothing about guns and gun safety.
I'm not discrediting your points -- fuck gun-show loopholes and ginormous magazines -- but please quit turning your argument up to eleven and try having some empathy with the people whose hobbies you're attempting to outlaw.
Imagine how you'd feel if I told you I wanted to ban needles so you'd stop shooting up your filthy marijuana, hippie.
26
Oh, and the Hawks are going to DESTROY the Skins. RG3 can't scramble and our defense is un-fucking-stoppable.
27
Uh, "six-shooter", nobody uses needles to 'shoot up marijuana'. Are you being sarcastic, or are you just stupid?
28
@16
"We disagree with it, we're obviously not getting anywhere trying to talk about effectiveness, so we'll just work on blocking step one in your plan - again."
I could respect someone who came out and said that their goal was to repeal the 2nd Amendment and institute a nation-wide ban on guns.
At least that person would be honest with his agenda AND exhibit some understanding of the past decisions made by the SCOTUS regarding the 2nd Amendment.
The core problem with the current "I don't want to ban guns but ..." crowd is that they have no idea what they're talking about OR the decisions of the SCOTUS.
It's all about whether a gun looks "scary" or not.
Not what the gun can do.
Not what the bullets can do.
Not what a person can accomplish WITHIN the limits of any proposed new laws.
This is a video of a guy firing a semi-automatic handgun with 6 round magazines. 18 bullets fired in less than 5 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QhmSg3Uj…
"We disagree with it, we're obviously not getting anywhere trying to talk about effectiveness, so we'll just work on blocking step one in your plan - again."
I could respect someone who came out and said that their goal was to repeal the 2nd Amendment and institute a nation-wide ban on guns.
At least that person would be honest with his agenda AND exhibit some understanding of the past decisions made by the SCOTUS regarding the 2nd Amendment.
The core problem with the current "I don't want to ban guns but ..." crowd is that they have no idea what they're talking about OR the decisions of the SCOTUS.
It's all about whether a gun looks "scary" or not.
Not what the gun can do.
Not what the bullets can do.
Not what a person can accomplish WITHIN the limits of any proposed new laws.
This is a video of a guy firing a semi-automatic handgun with 6 round magazines. 18 bullets fired in less than 5 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QhmSg3Uj…
30
@27: What six-shooter said made perfect sense to me (and, in fact, made me chuckle). Maybe you just need to lighten up a little.
31
@27
"six-shooter" seems to have been very clear in his statement:
"It's somewhat off-putting to be lectured about gun safety and gun-rights by someone who knows next-to-nothing about guns and gun safety."
And then he illustrated that with the "stop shooting up your filthy marijuana" comment.
At least TRY to read the comments, okay?
"six-shooter" seems to have been very clear in his statement:
"It's somewhat off-putting to be lectured about gun safety and gun-rights by someone who knows next-to-nothing about guns and gun safety."
And then he illustrated that with the "stop shooting up your filthy marijuana" comment.
At least TRY to read the comments, okay?
32
And @29, thanks for that. It's always helpful when someone freely admits to living in a dream world. Now we can just disregard anything you say.
34
@28
Over 90% of Americans are in the "I don't want to ban guns but I want to close the gun show loophole crowd." Pretty large "crowd" there. There's a long list of items that would be steps towards reducing gun deaths that are constitutional. Many of them are the law now in some states and would be just as constitutional on a national level.
Trying to act like this is a closed issue because of a Supreme Court ruling (which you don't understand anyway, due to it being written in English but that's a whole other issue) is a way of trying to shut down the discussion. It's so tedious. All you guys ever say is "STOP talking about this. NO TALKING!" Maybe growing up in Russia made you think censorship is normal.
Over 90% of Americans are in the "I don't want to ban guns but I want to close the gun show loophole crowd." Pretty large "crowd" there. There's a long list of items that would be steps towards reducing gun deaths that are constitutional. Many of them are the law now in some states and would be just as constitutional on a national level.
Trying to act like this is a closed issue because of a Supreme Court ruling (which you don't understand anyway, due to it being written in English but that's a whole other issue) is a way of trying to shut down the discussion. It's so tedious. All you guys ever say is "STOP talking about this. NO TALKING!" Maybe growing up in Russia made you think censorship is normal.
35
@29 Gun runners everywhere welcome your support! The Aryan Brotherhood has fallen on hard times and needs this extra business you are proposing!
36
@25
My god, you're right. I never thought about it that way. I'm basically talking about taking away a man's hobby. Leaving him with no hobby at all. Or, well, with one less hobby. I've become a monster.
My god, you're right. I never thought about it that way. I'm basically talking about taking away a man's hobby. Leaving him with no hobby at all. Or, well, with one less hobby. I've become a monster.
37
@29
At least you're honest about your agenda.
I'd prefer honest, informed opposition even if I don't agree with it.
At least you're honest about your agenda.
I'd prefer honest, informed opposition even if I don't agree with it.
38
@32
Remember what they said about gay marriage two decades ago? Twenty years ago gay marriage was a pipe dream. Even the most imaginative liberals just laughed at the very idea. Or gays in the military? Or a black president?
The demographic trends are pointing toward angry white guys becoming an irrelevant minority. Wingnut ideas like flat taxes or a rampant spread of guns are gaining no traction with the women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc.
The GOP had the Latino vote within their grasp, but they could not compromise. So they blew it. The same thing is happening with guns. It's the rigid ideology that's killing the right wing's chances. The worse it gets for you guys, the deeper you dig in.
You guys are the ones making the unthinkable become possible, and eventually, probable.
Remember what they said about gay marriage two decades ago? Twenty years ago gay marriage was a pipe dream. Even the most imaginative liberals just laughed at the very idea. Or gays in the military? Or a black president?
The demographic trends are pointing toward angry white guys becoming an irrelevant minority. Wingnut ideas like flat taxes or a rampant spread of guns are gaining no traction with the women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc.
The GOP had the Latino vote within their grasp, but they could not compromise. So they blew it. The same thing is happening with guns. It's the rigid ideology that's killing the right wing's chances. The worse it gets for you guys, the deeper you dig in.
You guys are the ones making the unthinkable become possible, and eventually, probable.
39
Who would you vote for for Seattle mayor?
Macklemore (real name Ben Haggerty) (59%, 722 Votes)
State Sen. Ed Murray (12%, 145 Votes)
Mike McGinn (9%, 107 Votes)
Peter Steinbrueck (former Seattle City Councilman) (8%, 102 Votes)
Tim Burgess (Seattle City Councilman) (7%, 87 Votes)
Kate Martin (neighborhood activist) (5%, 51 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,218
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/201…
Macklemore (real name Ben Haggerty) (59%, 722 Votes)
State Sen. Ed Murray (12%, 145 Votes)
Mike McGinn (9%, 107 Votes)
Peter Steinbrueck (former Seattle City Councilman) (8%, 102 Votes)
Tim Burgess (Seattle City Councilman) (7%, 87 Votes)
Kate Martin (neighborhood activist) (5%, 51 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,218
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/201…
40
38
angry white men built this nation and made it free and made it prosper.
obama voters are trust fund babies living off and squandering what the generations before them built.
it is no mystery what america will look like on 20 years.
look to latin america and africa for your answer...
the late great u.s. of a.-
where the unthinkable is now certain
angry white men built this nation and made it free and made it prosper.
obama voters are trust fund babies living off and squandering what the generations before them built.
it is no mystery what america will look like on 20 years.
look to latin america and africa for your answer...
the late great u.s. of a.-
where the unthinkable is now certain
41
Alright, none of this is "official," but here's what it's looking like: Mexican guy fries his brain on meth, goes whacko, and shoots up all his in-laws. Wife escapes through the window, which is who this info is coming from.
No more details yet.
No more details yet.
42
@41: oh, what a relief, then. Forget about gun restrictions. Alls we have to do is get rid of all them Mexicans, eh?
44
@41
My bet is that the press wont cover this too much due to it being a drugged up minority. I also heard unconfirmed reports that the weapon he used was a lever action.
BAN COWBOY STYLE ASSAULT SHOOTERS NOW!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jQ8sdBs…
My bet is that the press wont cover this too much due to it being a drugged up minority. I also heard unconfirmed reports that the weapon he used was a lever action.
BAN COWBOY STYLE ASSAULT SHOOTERS NOW!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jQ8sdBs…
45
funny how the gun owners get all technical and stuff ....when as a non gun owner I know this:
the system in japan or england or ireland or australia or canada works pretty well. what we got here doesn't.
and I know this: the persons sticking to what we got here? the ones blocking change? it's gun owners.
while they bemoan a lack of knowledge of this magazine versus that origin of this weapon blah blah blah this is after years of telling us the BIG FAT LIES like "guns don't kill" or guns make you safer or guns help us preserve liberty and oppose tyranny. there's not one fucking gun owner who was out there opposing waterboarding, or NSA spying, or kill lists chosen by the president without due processw. There's not even one who can answer the basic question, "how does it keep you safe from an armed intruder if you keep it locked in gun safe. you wouldn't have time to get it out, right?"
there's not one that can explain why our system is better than japan's or england's. and they still lie all the time. it's been made fairly clear that when we, the gun control folks, talk about what to do we often mention canada, yet they, the gun owners who oppose reform, still say we want to eliminate all guns. canada has seven fucking million guns, they are at about a 25% gun ownership rate, therefore listen up you gun lovers, we're saying we can reduce the number and kind and put on more regulations and get WAY MORE better rates of death by fun like they got in canada AND STILL MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YOU CAN HAVE YOUR STUPID FUCKING GUNS. got it? now stop lying, stop quibbling, and let's see YOU ALL get behind some reform that isn't a blatant dodge like the let's have a police state and put guards everywhere. oh by the way, since you love the second amendment so much I expect you all to form a militia and be there patrolling our schools and the corners of the south side of chicago. since you love the second amendment so much. and since it's got this thing about a militia in it. btw, this will be cheaper than paying for guards cuz as we know militia service is compulsory and not well paid. but no, I don't see any gun owners out there partrolling our streets to give us any safety -- you're not into the second amendment THAT much.
More...
the system in japan or england or ireland or australia or canada works pretty well. what we got here doesn't.
and I know this: the persons sticking to what we got here? the ones blocking change? it's gun owners.
while they bemoan a lack of knowledge of this magazine versus that origin of this weapon blah blah blah this is after years of telling us the BIG FAT LIES like "guns don't kill" or guns make you safer or guns help us preserve liberty and oppose tyranny. there's not one fucking gun owner who was out there opposing waterboarding, or NSA spying, or kill lists chosen by the president without due processw. There's not even one who can answer the basic question, "how does it keep you safe from an armed intruder if you keep it locked in gun safe. you wouldn't have time to get it out, right?"
there's not one that can explain why our system is better than japan's or england's. and they still lie all the time. it's been made fairly clear that when we, the gun control folks, talk about what to do we often mention canada, yet they, the gun owners who oppose reform, still say we want to eliminate all guns. canada has seven fucking million guns, they are at about a 25% gun ownership rate, therefore listen up you gun lovers, we're saying we can reduce the number and kind and put on more regulations and get WAY MORE better rates of death by fun like they got in canada AND STILL MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YOU CAN HAVE YOUR STUPID FUCKING GUNS. got it? now stop lying, stop quibbling, and let's see YOU ALL get behind some reform that isn't a blatant dodge like the let's have a police state and put guards everywhere. oh by the way, since you love the second amendment so much I expect you all to form a militia and be there patrolling our schools and the corners of the south side of chicago. since you love the second amendment so much. and since it's got this thing about a militia in it. btw, this will be cheaper than paying for guards cuz as we know militia service is compulsory and not well paid. but no, I don't see any gun owners out there partrolling our streets to give us any safety -- you're not into the second amendment THAT much.
46
@45
Japan has only had a stable government since 1945 before that they were a dictatorship that attempted to take over the world. The people there have never had arms and have historically been subjects in a feudal system, this goes for Britain as well.
Britain and ausfailia have a monarch and fail to understand basic concepts of liberty and human rights. Both are quickly becoming surveillance states.
Ireland has had a civil war going on for at least the last hundred years complete with underground sub-machine gun factories.
The US has been relatively stable and prosperous since 1776, it's citizens have always had the right to bear arms.
Also most other countries can not be compared to the US as they do not share our geographic and cultural diversity.
Japan has only had a stable government since 1945 before that they were a dictatorship that attempted to take over the world. The people there have never had arms and have historically been subjects in a feudal system, this goes for Britain as well.
Britain and ausfailia have a monarch and fail to understand basic concepts of liberty and human rights. Both are quickly becoming surveillance states.
Ireland has had a civil war going on for at least the last hundred years complete with underground sub-machine gun factories.
The US has been relatively stable and prosperous since 1776, it's citizens have always had the right to bear arms.
Also most other countries can not be compared to the US as they do not share our geographic and cultural diversity.
47
@44
Indeed. Lever action guns are just as deadly as semi-autos. Banning semi-automatics would change nothing. Our well regulated militia would be just as effective at ensuring a free state with our without semi-automatics.
What reason is there to keep them?
Indeed. Lever action guns are just as deadly as semi-autos. Banning semi-automatics would change nothing. Our well regulated militia would be just as effective at ensuring a free state with our without semi-automatics.
What reason is there to keep them?
48
it took @44 posts, but cascadian bacon comes through with the minutae about pistol types!
why won't people with guns stop making people with guns look bad?
why won't people with guns stop making people with guns look bad?
49
@46. japan today is free democratic and safe why not do what they do? britain canada and australia are free democratic and safe. you say america is free since 1776? what drugs are you taking are you unaware of slavery? other nations can't compare we are so diverse. oh really. so if we look at 30 other nations in europe and asia they aren't diverse like we are?
tell me exactly what's wrong with australia's gu laws that you couldn't live with. you guys are joking if you're whole theory is england isn't free, canada isn't free -- you're like the right wing idiots who say canada is all gulags because they have health care system thru their government. and the usa stable? really? 1863 was stable, taking part of mexico was stable, was holding people in bondage stable? lots of folks bore arms in 1850 in the south they didn't do a god damned thing to help enslaved people be free did they. and throughout later years, the private people bearing arms were more likely to murder african americans than touse their private arms for "freedom" or liberty. you fail to recognize one simple fact about guns that we know and you gun lovers don't know, being idiots: what they do in england canada australia and japan WORKS, and what we are doing here, DOES NOT WORK. your arguments why it couldn't work here are 2d grade level taunts at best.
tell me exactly what's wrong with australia's gu laws that you couldn't live with. you guys are joking if you're whole theory is england isn't free, canada isn't free -- you're like the right wing idiots who say canada is all gulags because they have health care system thru their government. and the usa stable? really? 1863 was stable, taking part of mexico was stable, was holding people in bondage stable? lots of folks bore arms in 1850 in the south they didn't do a god damned thing to help enslaved people be free did they. and throughout later years, the private people bearing arms were more likely to murder african americans than touse their private arms for "freedom" or liberty. you fail to recognize one simple fact about guns that we know and you gun lovers don't know, being idiots: what they do in england canada australia and japan WORKS, and what we are doing here, DOES NOT WORK. your arguments why it couldn't work here are 2d grade level taunts at best.
50
its feels racist just saying their name, but taking a continent from native americans, calling them americans, not giving back the land, we're okay with that! just don't say the name of that team in dc.
oh and in speaking of dc, to be pc, don't say the name of their team. that DC folks don't have equal voting rights and we rule over them isn't a problem though.
racism. it's mainly about words. meanwhile, vandals, celts, fighting irish are okay, and french fries are okay as is the azteca restaurant chain, also you can say whites and blacks referring to skin color, but not redskins. that's racist. but whites, that's not rac ist. see the logic?
oh and in speaking of dc, to be pc, don't say the name of their team. that DC folks don't have equal voting rights and we rule over them isn't a problem though.
racism. it's mainly about words. meanwhile, vandals, celts, fighting irish are okay, and french fries are okay as is the azteca restaurant chain, also you can say whites and blacks referring to skin color, but not redskins. that's racist. but whites, that's not rac ist. see the logic?
51
#1, how come "Sooners" hasn't made it onto the list of racist team nicknames? Think about just what it is that "Sooners" commemorates.
The answer is obvious. Oklahoma has a lot more clout with the NCAA than North Dakota, Miami (Ohio), Dartmouth, and William and Mary.
I have no connection to any of these institutions. I just think that Fighting Sioux, Vandals (Idaho), and Sea Lions (Point Loma Nazarene) are cool nicknames.
The answer is obvious. Oklahoma has a lot more clout with the NCAA than North Dakota, Miami (Ohio), Dartmouth, and William and Mary.
I have no connection to any of these institutions. I just think that Fighting Sioux, Vandals (Idaho), and Sea Lions (Point Loma Nazarene) are cool nicknames.
52
@40
Sir! Your racist balderdash has no place in today's NRA! You take your gun-toting white supremacist race baiting and be on your way. I said good daaaaaay, sir!
(Just kidding! Kidding! Wouldn't it be hilarious if the NRA said that? Never happen, obviously. Welcome, brother gun enthusiast, Whitey McWhiterperson. Welcome to today's NRA. We saved you a seat.)
Sir! Your racist balderdash has no place in today's NRA! You take your gun-toting white supremacist race baiting and be on your way. I said good daaaaaay, sir!
(Just kidding! Kidding! Wouldn't it be hilarious if the NRA said that? Never happen, obviously. Welcome, brother gun enthusiast, Whitey McWhiterperson. Welcome to today's NRA. We saved you a seat.)
53
@47
I actually do not own a lever gun because I consider them too dangerous, You can not remove the magazine nor can you see inside it. The safety on a lever action consist of pulling the trigger while holding the hammer back to put it in a half cock position, this has resulted in many accidental deaths. They are also rather famous for going off when dropped, and for primers detonating under recoil in the tube magazine as the bullets are stacked nose to primer.
I will stick to my AR15, with it's removable magazine, safety lever, and ammunition stacked vertically rather than horizontally. Modern firearms are far safer for both the operator and those a round them.
Write your congressman WE MUST BAN LEVER GUNS!
I actually do not own a lever gun because I consider them too dangerous, You can not remove the magazine nor can you see inside it. The safety on a lever action consist of pulling the trigger while holding the hammer back to put it in a half cock position, this has resulted in many accidental deaths. They are also rather famous for going off when dropped, and for primers detonating under recoil in the tube magazine as the bullets are stacked nose to primer.
I will stick to my AR15, with it's removable magazine, safety lever, and ammunition stacked vertically rather than horizontally. Modern firearms are far safer for both the operator and those a round them.
Write your congressman WE MUST BAN LEVER GUNS!
55
@53
What? You're getting all Montgomery Scott vs Geordi La Forge on me here. Is this geekout.thestranger.com? Do you think this catalog of technical blather is going to help you bed me? Not that easy, sir.
All I know is that these imaginary "Second Amendment remedies" are symbolic. Whether you've got single action guns or semi-autos, your chance of overthrowing the governemnt is zero either way. There's no "need" for that level of firepower.
Oh but you said something about safer! You want to be safe? The safest thing is to not own a gun. Having a gun on the premises increases your chances of being murdered and killing yourself, or someone in your home being shot. There's all the data in the world on that, for those who don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old and Jebus cures teh gay.
I know what you're going to say to that, but smart people don't believe you when you pretend this is about safety. You don't want safety. You want your badass gun.
What? You're getting all Montgomery Scott vs Geordi La Forge on me here. Is this geekout.thestranger.com? Do you think this catalog of technical blather is going to help you bed me? Not that easy, sir.
All I know is that these imaginary "Second Amendment remedies" are symbolic. Whether you've got single action guns or semi-autos, your chance of overthrowing the governemnt is zero either way. There's no "need" for that level of firepower.
Oh but you said something about safer! You want to be safe? The safest thing is to not own a gun. Having a gun on the premises increases your chances of being murdered and killing yourself, or someone in your home being shot. There's all the data in the world on that, for those who don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old and Jebus cures teh gay.
I know what you're going to say to that, but smart people don't believe you when you pretend this is about safety. You don't want safety. You want your badass gun.
56
@55
And once again this proves that you have no clue about what you are talking about.
Merely and emotional reaction that causes you want to deny the natural rights of 300 million + people because you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
And once again this proves that you have no clue about what you are talking about.
Merely and emotional reaction that causes you want to deny the natural rights of 300 million + people because you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
57
@56
Oh, drat! You have mansplained me and I am emasculated with your command of hard logic and esoteric facts.
This "spew nerd-speak" tactic is item #12 in the gun nut handbook for trying to shut down discussion on topics they don't want people to talk about. Cow them with your manly mastery of gun lore! They'll run in fear! How's that working out for you?
Semi-automatic rifles are SAFER! Good luck with that one. The NRA should put it on billboards. Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien will have a ball with you.
(And... there are not 300 million gun owners in America. There are 300 million guns. Those 300 million guns don't have rights. I'll shoot a memo to Dr. Freud for you.
Oh, drat! You have mansplained me and I am emasculated with your command of hard logic and esoteric facts.
This "spew nerd-speak" tactic is item #12 in the gun nut handbook for trying to shut down discussion on topics they don't want people to talk about. Cow them with your manly mastery of gun lore! They'll run in fear! How's that working out for you?
Semi-automatic rifles are SAFER! Good luck with that one. The NRA should put it on billboards. Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien will have a ball with you.
(And... there are not 300 million gun owners in America. There are 300 million guns. Those 300 million guns don't have rights. I'll shoot a memo to Dr. Freud for you.
58
I like the fact that no one knows if I own a gun or not. That's the best part of the second amendment. I get all the value of my neighbors being armed without any of the expense or danger to myself or my family.
I especially like that the police don't know if I've got a gun with me or not. When my name appears on the computer screen, so does my concealed carry permit (or maybe I'm lying and I don't have one).
The police get right to the point while detaining you if you're in your own vehicle with proper ID, and you have permission to have a firearm with you.
Somehow that seems like it protects me from the government.
I especially like that the police don't know if I've got a gun with me or not. When my name appears on the computer screen, so does my concealed carry permit (or maybe I'm lying and I don't have one).
The police get right to the point while detaining you if you're in your own vehicle with proper ID, and you have permission to have a firearm with you.
Somehow that seems like it protects me from the government.
59
*Sigh*
The bill of rights applies to all Americans, not just those who choose to exercise them.
The safety thing is like how modern cars, power tools, or other mechanized equipment is safer to use than older models lacking safety equipment.
And sorry, explaining how equipment works is not some secret NRA cis male privileged trick to confuse you, it is simply explaining the actual factual function to bridge understanding. You know, like how things work in real life rather than gun-free, governments and criminals never harm anyone unicorn fantasy land where machines operate by magic.
The bill of rights applies to all Americans, not just those who choose to exercise them.
The safety thing is like how modern cars, power tools, or other mechanized equipment is safer to use than older models lacking safety equipment.
And sorry, explaining how equipment works is not some secret NRA cis male privileged trick to confuse you, it is simply explaining the actual factual function to bridge understanding. You know, like how things work in real life rather than gun-free, governments and criminals never harm anyone unicorn fantasy land where machines operate by magic.
61
@56: Cthulhu knows what Cthulhu is talking about, it's just a completely different frame of reference. Inside that frame it's completely rational. It's not one that I believe to be plausible, that I agree with, or want to be in, and I'll certainly work with the rest of the {patriarchy/loony/small-phallused/faux victim/Christianist/Southern/whoever else I'm in the hot tub with} to not have to be there, but it's a complete worldview.
It's a very long run argument, will be interesting to see where it all lands.
It's a very long run argument, will be interesting to see where it all lands.
62
@58
And who could possibly argue with what you think is going on in the heads of the police?
What do you think happens to those of us who get pulled over without a carry permit? You're imagining we get detained for 3 hours and have the full body cavity search? I get pulled over for something once every year or three and all they do is get to the point and send me on my way. No drama.
On the other hand, cops blow people away all the time for holding something that might could possibly look like it's maybe a gun. Cell phone. Candy bar. Whatever. Guns are every fucking where and the cops are paranoid and trigger happy. This makes you feel safe?
And who could possibly argue with what you think is going on in the heads of the police?
What do you think happens to those of us who get pulled over without a carry permit? You're imagining we get detained for 3 hours and have the full body cavity search? I get pulled over for something once every year or three and all they do is get to the point and send me on my way. No drama.
On the other hand, cops blow people away all the time for holding something that might could possibly look like it's maybe a gun. Cell phone. Candy bar. Whatever. Guns are every fucking where and the cops are paranoid and trigger happy. This makes you feel safe?
64
Georgia Mother Shoots Home Invader to Protect Kids (VIDEO)
At this point, it came down to a simple decision: use force to protect herself and her children or be at the mercy of the burglar with the crowbar.
The brave mother opted to do the former, firing all six rounds at the intruder. The man was hit five times, according to Sheriff Chapman.
http://www.guns.com/2013/01/05/georgia-m…
65
Phnglui mglw.....,
When you came onto the scene I really admired your comments. A few sentences at most and you had an honest effect on me. They were sharp, humorous and cutting. Now you are off the charts for my taste. Consider the length of posts by people like Pope Peabrain, Max Solomon and 5280. Get back to what you do best. Sorry for being Suggestive Dick, it's just how I see it.
When you came onto the scene I really admired your comments. A few sentences at most and you had an honest effect on me. They were sharp, humorous and cutting. Now you are off the charts for my taste. Consider the length of posts by people like Pope Peabrain, Max Solomon and 5280. Get back to what you do best. Sorry for being Suggestive Dick, it's just how I see it.
66
@59
Semi-autos are ubiquitous and have been engineered and refined for decades because that's where the market is. There's no technical reason why lever or pump or single action guns can't be at least as safe. It's just that lever actions are old school and nobody invests money in them.
Pump action shotguns are certainly safe enough for the cops to carry. And we're phasing out incandescent bulbs the same way: as replacement technologies get better, we move over to them.
Spooge! Big nerdgasm. All this gun geek shit is irrelevant. Any argument you could make saying you "need" a semi-auto could just as easily be used to claim you "need" a fully automatic assault rifle. The only reason Anton Scalia could think of to keep semi-automatic handguns legal was that they were really, really popular. That's a constitutional argument? Popularity? Leaded gas used to be everywhere, and now it's gone.
We could easily move the line between semi-auto/full-auto and draw it between single action/semi-auto. There's no inherent reason why there must be a magic line between semi-automatic and fully automatic.
More to the point, we could easily ban some semi-autos, and large capacity magazines, and the world wouldn't come crashing down. It's a tiny change, and a common sense first step. "Never give an inch" and you gun nuts are going to bring the boom down on yourselves twice as hard. Mark my words.
Semi-autos are ubiquitous and have been engineered and refined for decades because that's where the market is. There's no technical reason why lever or pump or single action guns can't be at least as safe. It's just that lever actions are old school and nobody invests money in them.
Pump action shotguns are certainly safe enough for the cops to carry. And we're phasing out incandescent bulbs the same way: as replacement technologies get better, we move over to them.
Spooge! Big nerdgasm. All this gun geek shit is irrelevant. Any argument you could make saying you "need" a semi-auto could just as easily be used to claim you "need" a fully automatic assault rifle. The only reason Anton Scalia could think of to keep semi-automatic handguns legal was that they were really, really popular. That's a constitutional argument? Popularity? Leaded gas used to be everywhere, and now it's gone.
We could easily move the line between semi-auto/full-auto and draw it between single action/semi-auto. There's no inherent reason why there must be a magic line between semi-automatic and fully automatic.
More to the point, we could easily ban some semi-autos, and large capacity magazines, and the world wouldn't come crashing down. It's a tiny change, and a common sense first step. "Never give an inch" and you gun nuts are going to bring the boom down on yourselves twice as hard. Mark my words.
68
Popularity is constitutionally consistent SCOTUS ruled in Heller Vs. DC that the arms protected 2nd amendment refers to which arms are in "common use" at the time.
Also you are correct there should not be a line drawn between semi auto and fully auto, both should be allowed for individual possession. Full auto was restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, fully automatic weapons were not in common use at the time; however they are now in common use.
Also you are correct there should not be a line drawn between semi auto and fully auto, both should be allowed for individual possession. Full auto was restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, fully automatic weapons were not in common use at the time; however they are now in common use.
69
@68 --
Does the national firearms act of 1934 have anything to do with bank robbers and gangsters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Brown…
Does the national firearms act of 1934 have anything to do with bank robbers and gangsters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Brown…
70
@46: Another fine product of the US public education system I see.
Don't they teach you people anything about the rest of the world in school? Or were you just cutting class to smoke weed during Social Studies?
Don't they teach you people anything about the rest of the world in school? Or were you just cutting class to smoke weed during Social Studies?
71
@68
Yes! Forget about "Semi-autos are safer!" The NRA should put up billboards saying "Never forget Sandy Hook. Legalize machine guns."
Are you trying to make gun nuts look worse? I mean actually, compared to Wayne LaPierre, you're not that much of a loon. But still. Unrestricted machine guns? It's Poe's Law all the time with you guys.
Yes! Forget about "Semi-autos are safer!" The NRA should put up billboards saying "Never forget Sandy Hook. Legalize machine guns."
Are you trying to make gun nuts look worse? I mean actually, compared to Wayne LaPierre, you're not that much of a loon. But still. Unrestricted machine guns? It's Poe's Law all the time with you guys.
74
For all of you out there living in fairy land (and especially Cthulhu) who think it's "easy" to amend the US constitution, a little history lesson on what happened the last time it was tried is in order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Right…
(And that was nowhere near as controversial as changing or revoking the second amendment would be.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Right…
(And that was nowhere near as controversial as changing or revoking the second amendment would be.)
75
Cascadian Bacon drooled:
Tell me, CB, what do you think of the passage of all the various surveillance laws in the US? What do you think of the militarization of the police forces in the US? Have you heard that the Seattle PD is playing with drones lately? You know, those unmanned toy airplanes used for (wait for it...) SURVEILLANCE!
Listen, CB, have you read this story noting how some shadowy surveillance body called the "Domestic Security Alliance Council" was used on behalf of the banks to spy on Occupy protestors?
Tell me, CB, tell me that the US is not a "surveillance state" and that you and all your fellow gun owners have somehow magically prevented us from becoming a "surveillance state".
Or, you know, check your silly "gunz R great!" attitude at the door, man. Facts are not on your side.
"Britain and ausfailia have a monarch and fail to understand basic concepts of liberty and human rights. Both are quickly becoming surveillance states"
Tell me, CB, what do you think of the passage of all the various surveillance laws in the US? What do you think of the militarization of the police forces in the US? Have you heard that the Seattle PD is playing with drones lately? You know, those unmanned toy airplanes used for (wait for it...) SURVEILLANCE!
Listen, CB, have you read this story noting how some shadowy surveillance body called the "Domestic Security Alliance Council" was used on behalf of the banks to spy on Occupy protestors?
Tell me, CB, tell me that the US is not a "surveillance state" and that you and all your fellow gun owners have somehow magically prevented us from becoming a "surveillance state".
Or, you know, check your silly "gunz R great!" attitude at the door, man. Facts are not on your side.
76
thank god we have the second amendment. NRA members and private gun owners led the way to more liberty in america, including ending slavery getting women the vote, emancipating women, ending jim crow wow nra you played a big rol ein that on and now of course the nra and gun owners are leading the fight against drones and outsourced torture. yessir, our defenders of the constitution are all gun owners, without them, my god, we'd have gulags like the ones they have in canada or australia where they took away too many guns and lost their freedoms!
77
@75 - obviously the solution is for private owners to have drones too. So what if it means a guy like 5280 or CB might blow up a movie theater by accident (or on purpose if the lose their family, or job, or dog, or sanity, or election, or religion, or faith in their favorite sports team). If its a weapon, it makes everyone safer, right?
I can't wait for the debate about how kiloton nukes with a safety are safer than megaton nukes without. And why shouldn't citizens have nukes? Its a slippery slope from banning nukes to taking away your private drones! Liberty and Freedom!
I can't wait for the debate about how kiloton nukes with a safety are safer than megaton nukes without. And why shouldn't citizens have nukes? Its a slippery slope from banning nukes to taking away your private drones! Liberty and Freedom!
78
@63
Three. Or five, counting the ones I don't talk to very often.
Will you please stop wagging your cock around on the Internet. Nobody believes you even own a gun. Nobody believes you're a grown man. My guess is that you're 15. Possibly a precocious 13 year old. Your parents wouldn't let you have a gun in a million years and it's killing you.
I can't prove it but the personality that comes through in your words says you won't turn 16 for a while yet. I'd put money on that. And maybe your school has a "resource officer" and that's how you "know" cops.
Pathetic.
Three. Or five, counting the ones I don't talk to very often.
Will you please stop wagging your cock around on the Internet. Nobody believes you even own a gun. Nobody believes you're a grown man. My guess is that you're 15. Possibly a precocious 13 year old. Your parents wouldn't let you have a gun in a million years and it's killing you.
I can't prove it but the personality that comes through in your words says you won't turn 16 for a while yet. I'd put money on that. And maybe your school has a "resource officer" and that's how you "know" cops.
Pathetic.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (78) RSS