Uzi kidding

[Lord Jim]

Why would a thug be bursting through my door though?

Perhaps they've heard some of your music?

[Econoline]

Found amidst the comments on another website:

If you need to have a drink in order to deal with others, you have a problem and you need to get some help.

If you need to take some illicit substance in order to function in your day, you have a problem and you need to get some help.

If you have to carry a firearm in broad daylight on a public street in order to feel safe, you have a problem, and you really need to get some help.

[rubato]

Oh, what the fuck...I'm gonna go ahead and post this. It's really gonna piss off some of you here, but I think this is funny as hell, and mostly true:

"Responsible slave owners."

Thanks, Econo, that was hilarious (and more than mostly true).

This was fabulous and totally spot on. I was screaming with laughter. I especially loved him "American gun owner voice." This performance was in Boston at the Wilbur, I might add. Wish I had seen it.

"You know what's good about a musket? Muskets give you time to calm down." Who can possibly quibble with that?

He makes a lot of points very clearly. Speaking as someone who likes guns and likes shooting and has owned guns in the past and will again I have to admit that the "self protection" argument is pure crap.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

No matter how many times you repeat that bullshit, it is still bullshit!

[Guinevere]

You should apply that same maxim to yourself, Jarl.

[Lord Jim]

I have to admit that the "self protection" argument is pure crap.

I have no doubt that in your case that's true.

And anyone who believes, (as it appears some do from their posts in this thread) that if they had a gun, it wouldn't serve as any form of protection, or that it's more likely the bad guy would get it, etc, etc, etc, probably shouldn't own one either.

Please feel free not to own a gun. That's your right. What you do not have a right to do is make that judgement for, or impose that view, on anyone else.

[Econoline]

Please feel free not to own a gun. That's your right. What you do not have a right to do is make that judgement for, or impose that view, on anyone else.

Agreed. But what we *DO* have a right to do is to argue the point with anyone else, and to try to change their minds, little by little.

My own views on guns have certainly evolved over the years, and have been affected not only by happenings in the news but also by the views of others on this website (and its predecessors where I've participated--CSB and Car Talk). In particular, these forums have given me the opportunity to interact with many intelligent and articulate gun owners, so that serves as a counterpoint to the many relatively unintelligent and inarticulate gun nuts one finds elsewhere in the news and the streets.

One result of this is that I've come to believe that the 2nd Amendment does indeed contain a guarantee of the right of individual citizens (not just "militia"--however broadly that term is defined) to keep and bear arms. And that even *IF* the 2nd Amendment sometimes seems as anachronistic as the 3rd Amendment, it's not going away, it's not going to be repealed, it's a framework within we can and must work to sensibly, well, regulate firearms in the 21st century.

And that the NRA was once a responsible and respectable organization, but it no longer speaks for those "intelligent and articulate gun owners" I mentioned above. Instead it speaks for madmen like this guy (a shitting sitting member of the NRA Board of Directors):

“Those who carry guns had better gun & ammo up no matter where you go, carrying at least 10 spare mags or 10 spare speedloaders because the allahpukes are confident they will once again methodically slaughter walking cowering whining cryin helpless sitting ducks capable of zero resistance. To gullible naive embarrassing ill prepared targets, there is still time to firepower up ASAP. Head for cover but retain an attentiveness in order to identify the evildoers and dbl tap center mass, then two to the head. Then take cover and prepare your next evasive escape, taking dwn known jihadists to the best of your ability, Aim small miss small center mass & headshots.”

.......

[Lord Jim]

I really don't see anything to disagree with in your post Econo...

I've made pretty clear how I feel about the leadership of the NRA; they've become a wholly owned subsidiary of the firearms manufacturers. They've been so successful politically that now they go after even the most commonsensical firearm regulation proposals.

Their whole strategy is based on appealing to the small percentage of extreme paranoiacs and getting them whipped up to vote in low turnout elections, and then use their success at doing this as a way to cow and intimidate legislators from voting even for modest proposals that enjoy overwhelming popular support. It's disgusting.

You're also right when you point out that there is absolutely positively no way that the 2nd Amendment is going to be repealed. Anyone who believes this is a serious possibility must be taking some powerful hallucinogens, or living in an alternative timeline.

[Crackpot]

I would agree if you add the caveat "in the near future" because the long term effect of the NRAs policies will be the long term erosion of the second amendments support.

[liberty]

Perhaps some people should not attempt to avoid being victims. It could be that it is the fate of the liberal to be a victim. Consider the case of Nicole Simpson; she had the opportunity to take steps to defend herself, but she chose to put her faith in a magical piece of paper that failed to protect her. If that is the choice that liberal prefer to make so be it, but don't deny other people more practical means of self defense.

I mean no disrespect to any individual liberal.

[Econoline]

econoline, (I like ford vans by the way) come on man, I don t mind you having your view. variety is he spice of life, no? but you know, I think, that you are distorting the meaning of the words when you say it should be well regulated. that works with many because they aren t well versed in 18th century language. on this site I don t think that s a problem. . . . . . *

Here is an interesting essay on just that point. It's fairly long (go to the link) so I'm just going to quote his conclusion, at the end of the piece:

Therefore, taking everything in the preceding discussion into consideration--that is, the role of militias in the early history of the United States, including both before the Revolutionary War as well as the experiences of George Washington et al with the colonial militia during the War, and then also the parallels between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution regarding the definition, role, and functioning of the militia--I think it safe to say that the following interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is from an Originalist perspective, stands on fairly firm ground:

The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!

“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)

But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)

In other words, the use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment wasn’t meant to be an ‘either-or’, ‘black-and-white’ proposition, it was meant to be an all-inclusive term that covered all possible aspects of the situation vis-à-vis militias.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/ ... TR0We.dpuf

* (Off-topic, but possibly helpful to you (and others): my own preferred method for replying to a particular point in a particular previous post is to click the "QUOTE" button (above the post)--which will then quote the entire post at the beginning of your reply--and then delete all but the part of the post to which you're replying [the easiest way to do this is to highlight with the cursor everything you want to delete, then hit the "DELETE" key on your keyboard].)

[Econoline]

liberty - are you assuming that the ONLY way to "avoid being victims" is to own and carry a gun?

Because if that's what you're saying I can certainly come up with plenty of examples of people (including several of us here on this very forum) who have avoided being victims WITHOUT owning a gun--not to mention plenty of examples of people who who HAVEN'T avoided being victims DESPITE owning guns.

[liberty]

liberty - are you assuming that the ONLY way to "avoid being victims" is to own and carry a gun?

Because if that's what you're saying I can certainly come up with plenty of examples of people (including several of us here on this very forum) who have avoided being victims WITHOUT owning a gun--not to mention plenty of examples of people who who HAVEN'T avoided being victims DESPITE owning guns.

It depends on the situation. I don't carry a gun on a daily basis, but I always have that option. If I had been in Nicole's situation I would have been packing. If she had a gun when she was attacked she would be alive and O.J. would be dead, assuming that she would take the time to learn to use it.

[Joe Guy]

It depends on the situation. I don't carry a gun on a daily basis, but I always have that option. If I had been in Nicole's situation I would have been packing. If she had a gun when she was attacked she would be alive and O.J. would be dead, assuming that she would take the time to learn to use it.

You wouldn't have needed a gun.

If you had been divorced from OJ Simpson I can't imagine him wanting to kill you for seeing someone else.

Just my 2 cents...

[BoSoxGal]

Right . . . because nobody armed has ever been overcome by a bigger armed person with the element of surprise.

@ liberty

eta: Now, if Ron Goldman had been [fire]armed . . .

[Jarlaxle]

You should apply that same maxim to yourself, Jarl.

I am alive because I was armed. My uncle is alive because he was armed. It truly is that simple.

And I just sent $100 each to the NRA and GOAL. I figure the Givi top box can wait until next spring.

[Econoline]

Somebody please 'splain to me why these 2 bozos "needed" guns??? Or how MOAR GUNZ!!!!1!!--e.g., if the car wash owner (who apparently knew both men) had been packing--would've helped the situation?

[liberty]

It depends on the situation. I don't carry a gun on a daily basis, but I always have that option. If I had been in Nicole's situation I would have been packing. If she had a gun when she was attacked she would be alive and O.J. would be dead, assuming that she would take the time to learn to use it.

You wouldn't have needed a gun.

If you had been divorced from OJ Simpson I can't imagine him wanting to kill you for seeing someone else.

Just my 2 cents...

Sexist pig.

[liberty]

Right . . . because nobody armed has ever been overcome by a bigger armed person with the element of surprise.

@ liberty

eta: Now, if Ron Goldman had been [fire]armed . . .

Sexist piget. Are saying just because women are generally smaller than men they are not capably of depending themselves, especially when the thug would not have been expecting it? He was armed with a knife. While Simpson was cutting Goldman for fun she could have shot him and save both her life and Goldman’s.

[Big RR]

If she could have had the time to take out a gun and shoot him while he was "cutting Goldman", she also could have run away. That she didn't (at least according to the evidence I have heard) makes me think she didn't have that time, that either the ambush attack was very quick or she was frozen with fear and could do nothing. In either case, I doubt a gun would have helped.