by wj
“There is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these [factual] questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.” [emphasis added]
If you’re thinking that was written by stalwart Democratic partisan, you can be forgiven; but you are flat wrong. Bruce Bartlett is a veteran of the Reagan and Bush-41 administrations. It appears he may have moved beyond the GOP, but only as far as “independent”. A Democratic partisan he simply is not.
What makes his paper fascinating is that his conclusion (above) applies even after controlling for party membership, political ideology, etc. That is, you can be a staunch Republican, but if you do not follow Fox News, you will know a lot more about what is really happening in the world than if you do follow it. Somehow, it seems to me like something that would make it hard to come up with, and sell to your supporters, policies which will actually work.
Here’s your chance to come up with ways for a political party to florish, even when your most motivated base followers are more ignorant than those who know nothing. That is, they know a lot of stuff that just is not, objectively, true. Feel free to offer up examples of any party and any ideology — whether they turned out to work well when tried, and under what constraints (e.g. enforced information isolation).
A companion piece:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/republicans-hate-obamacare-even-if-they-their-own-obamacare-plans
A recent example of deliberately applied FOX ignorance and the malignity it is engendering in this country:
http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2015/05/blind_man_obamacare.html
Other “parties” that have deliberately sewn malign ignorance and rhetoric via media and have followed through with intention:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, Hutu chieftains, including against their moderate Hutu fellows, which I believe they called HINOs, whatever conservative interests run any number of countries, including Egypt, Iran, Syria, Iraq (now and before), Saudi Arabia, Israel, racist Southern Democrats and their Ku Klux Clan brethren, and now, the Republican Party on all fronts on every issue across the board.
All of them worked without constraints at what they set out to do.
A companion piece:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/republicans-hate-obamacare-even-if-they-their-own-obamacare-plans
A recent example of deliberately applied FOX ignorance and the malignity it is engendering in this country:
http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2015/05/blind_man_obamacare.html
Other “parties” that have deliberately sewn malign ignorance and rhetoric via media and have followed through with intention:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, Hutu chieftains, including against their moderate Hutu fellows, which I believe they called HINOs, whatever conservative interests run any number of countries, including Egypt, Iran, Syria, Iraq (now and before), Saudi Arabia, Israel, racist Southern Democrats and their Ku Klux Clan brethren, and now, the Republican Party on all fronts on every issue across the board.
All of them worked without constraints at what they set out to do.
A companion piece:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/republicans-hate-obamacare-even-if-they-their-own-obamacare-plans
A recent example of deliberately applied FOX ignorance and the malignity it is engendering in this country:
http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2015/05/blind_man_obamacare.html
Other “parties” that have deliberately sewn malign ignorance and rhetoric via media and have followed through with intention:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, Hutu chieftains, including against their moderate Hutu fellows, which I believe they called HINOs, whatever conservative interests run any number of countries, including Egypt, Iran, Syria, Iraq (now and before), Saudi Arabia, Israel, racist Southern Democrats and their Ku Klux Clan brethren, and now, the Republican Party on all fronts on every issue across the board.
All of them worked without constraints at what they set out to do.
The Workers’ Party of Korea seems to have thrived for quite some time now…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Korea
The Workers’ Party of Korea seems to have thrived for quite some time now…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Korea
The Workers’ Party of Korea seems to have thrived for quite some time now…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Korea
As the count said, I think a lot of people have gone far with deliberate falsehoods as part of their party platform. It’s just human nature to want the world to conform in every respect to one’s particular ideology or religion or both. And if there are enough people who feel that way, a political party can thrive.
Fred Clark (who I think is sometimes overly biased himself, but that’s another story) had a pretty good piece on how tribalism determines some people’s beliefs–
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/05/15/we-must-be-careful-about-what-we-pretend-to-be-how-tribal-cheerleading-creates-new-tribal-dogma-and-changes-the-tribe-to-conform-to-it/
As the count said, I think a lot of people have gone far with deliberate falsehoods as part of their party platform. It’s just human nature to want the world to conform in every respect to one’s particular ideology or religion or both. And if there are enough people who feel that way, a political party can thrive.
Fred Clark (who I think is sometimes overly biased himself, but that’s another story) had a pretty good piece on how tribalism determines some people’s beliefs–
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/05/15/we-must-be-careful-about-what-we-pretend-to-be-how-tribal-cheerleading-creates-new-tribal-dogma-and-changes-the-tribe-to-conform-to-it/
As the count said, I think a lot of people have gone far with deliberate falsehoods as part of their party platform. It’s just human nature to want the world to conform in every respect to one’s particular ideology or religion or both. And if there are enough people who feel that way, a political party can thrive.
Fred Clark (who I think is sometimes overly biased himself, but that’s another story) had a pretty good piece on how tribalism determines some people’s beliefs–
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/05/15/we-must-be-careful-about-what-we-pretend-to-be-how-tribal-cheerleading-creates-new-tribal-dogma-and-changes-the-tribe-to-conform-to-it/
More from Bartlett a couple of years ago:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13336-a-former-republican-insider-begs-for-sanity
More, earlier than that:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud
Bartlett may think he is still a Republican, but he’s dead meat, like a reasonable, moderate-by-comparison Hutu, in the eyes of this murderous John Birch monstrosity that has body-snatched the Republican Party, which was bad enough before.
More from Bartlett a couple of years ago:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13336-a-former-republican-insider-begs-for-sanity
More, earlier than that:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud
Bartlett may think he is still a Republican, but he’s dead meat, like a reasonable, moderate-by-comparison Hutu, in the eyes of this murderous John Birch monstrosity that has body-snatched the Republican Party, which was bad enough before.
More from Bartlett a couple of years ago:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13336-a-former-republican-insider-begs-for-sanity
More, earlier than that:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud
Bartlett may think he is still a Republican, but he’s dead meat, like a reasonable, moderate-by-comparison Hutu, in the eyes of this murderous John Birch monstrosity that has body-snatched the Republican Party, which was bad enough before.
Every party in a democracy uses “disinformation” to some extent in its campaigns. But once they are actually trying to govern, they usually keep the misinformation to a few narrow areas. Because otherwise they find it almost impossible to do things which actually work as intended.
Things are, in some respects, easier in an autocracy. Nobody there cares, when making policy decisions, if the masses are mistaken in what they believe or in what respects. At most, you want to make sure that their mistakes will help whatever you are trying to get them to do — just because it takes fewer of your limited resources to get them going that way.
Every party in a democracy uses “disinformation” to some extent in its campaigns. But once they are actually trying to govern, they usually keep the misinformation to a few narrow areas. Because otherwise they find it almost impossible to do things which actually work as intended.
Things are, in some respects, easier in an autocracy. Nobody there cares, when making policy decisions, if the masses are mistaken in what they believe or in what respects. At most, you want to make sure that their mistakes will help whatever you are trying to get them to do — just because it takes fewer of your limited resources to get them going that way.
Every party in a democracy uses “disinformation” to some extent in its campaigns. But once they are actually trying to govern, they usually keep the misinformation to a few narrow areas. Because otherwise they find it almost impossible to do things which actually work as intended.
Things are, in some respects, easier in an autocracy. Nobody there cares, when making policy decisions, if the masses are mistaken in what they believe or in what respects. At most, you want to make sure that their mistakes will help whatever you are trying to get them to do — just because it takes fewer of your limited resources to get them going that way.
“But once they are actually trying to govern, they usually keep the misinformation to a few narrow areas. Because otherwise they find it almost impossible to do things which actually work as intended.”
I’m not sure that’s true. If you want to help the rich, you will tell the average voter that tax cuts for the rich benefit everyone. And you’ll keep saying that, whether it’s true or not. So it depends on whether the stated goal of a policy is the same as the actual goal of the policy.
“But once they are actually trying to govern, they usually keep the misinformation to a few narrow areas. Because otherwise they find it almost impossible to do things which actually work as intended.”
I’m not sure that’s true. If you want to help the rich, you will tell the average voter that tax cuts for the rich benefit everyone. And you’ll keep saying that, whether it’s true or not. So it depends on whether the stated goal of a policy is the same as the actual goal of the policy.
“But once they are actually trying to govern, they usually keep the misinformation to a few narrow areas. Because otherwise they find it almost impossible to do things which actually work as intended.”
I’m not sure that’s true. If you want to help the rich, you will tell the average voter that tax cuts for the rich benefit everyone. And you’ll keep saying that, whether it’s true or not. So it depends on whether the stated goal of a policy is the same as the actual goal of the policy.
Bartlett on Obama:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_face_it_obama_is_a_conservative/
I have grudging respect for Bruce Bartlett, but he could have gone to his boss Ronald Reagan and begged him to not announce his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi, don’t pull bits of paper out of your pockets and lie about fat black welfare mothers, don’t fire the air traffic controllers and destroy Archie Bunker conservative labor unions and start the 35 year flattening out of wages for the lower and middle classes, and don’t send a cake to the Iranians or arms to the murderous Contras.
Send a cake to Rock Hudson instead.
And whatever you do, quit licking Jerry Falwell’s, Rush Limbaugh’s and Lee Atwater’s faces.
Reagan’s strategic winking at the basest elements of the conservative cesspool in this country got this thing going.
All to secure the votes for tax cuts.
Blow it up.
Yeah, everybody does it. Time for the other side to do it bigger, better, and even more devisively to settle the hash once and for all.
Bartlett on Obama:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_face_it_obama_is_a_conservative/
I have grudging respect for Bruce Bartlett, but he could have gone to his boss Ronald Reagan and begged him to not announce his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi, don’t pull bits of paper out of your pockets and lie about fat black welfare mothers, don’t fire the air traffic controllers and destroy Archie Bunker conservative labor unions and start the 35 year flattening out of wages for the lower and middle classes, and don’t send a cake to the Iranians or arms to the murderous Contras.
Send a cake to Rock Hudson instead.
And whatever you do, quit licking Jerry Falwell’s, Rush Limbaugh’s and Lee Atwater’s faces.
Reagan’s strategic winking at the basest elements of the conservative cesspool in this country got this thing going.
All to secure the votes for tax cuts.
Blow it up.
Yeah, everybody does it. Time for the other side to do it bigger, better, and even more devisively to settle the hash once and for all.
Bartlett on Obama:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_face_it_obama_is_a_conservative/
I have grudging respect for Bruce Bartlett, but he could have gone to his boss Ronald Reagan and begged him to not announce his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi, don’t pull bits of paper out of your pockets and lie about fat black welfare mothers, don’t fire the air traffic controllers and destroy Archie Bunker conservative labor unions and start the 35 year flattening out of wages for the lower and middle classes, and don’t send a cake to the Iranians or arms to the murderous Contras.
Send a cake to Rock Hudson instead.
And whatever you do, quit licking Jerry Falwell’s, Rush Limbaugh’s and Lee Atwater’s faces.
Reagan’s strategic winking at the basest elements of the conservative cesspool in this country got this thing going.
All to secure the votes for tax cuts.
Blow it up.
Yeah, everybody does it. Time for the other side to do it bigger, better, and even more devisively to settle the hash once and for all.
On things like the Jade Helm conspiracy theory, I think it probably does hurt the Republican Party as a whole, but that depends on whether such craziness drives away more voters than it energizes. Once in office, it might not hurt to have your voters think the opposition is not only wrong, but willing to seize power if they ever get back in office. I don’t think it’s good for the country, obviously, to have crazed lunacy as part of the national conversation, but there is something blogger Jon Schwarz called “The Iron Law of Institutions”–people act to preserve their power within the institution, not to help the institution as a whole. The institution in this case could be either the Republican Party or the country as a whole.
On things like the Jade Helm conspiracy theory, I think it probably does hurt the Republican Party as a whole, but that depends on whether such craziness drives away more voters than it energizes. Once in office, it might not hurt to have your voters think the opposition is not only wrong, but willing to seize power if they ever get back in office. I don’t think it’s good for the country, obviously, to have crazed lunacy as part of the national conversation, but there is something blogger Jon Schwarz called “The Iron Law of Institutions”–people act to preserve their power within the institution, not to help the institution as a whole. The institution in this case could be either the Republican Party or the country as a whole.
On things like the Jade Helm conspiracy theory, I think it probably does hurt the Republican Party as a whole, but that depends on whether such craziness drives away more voters than it energizes. Once in office, it might not hurt to have your voters think the opposition is not only wrong, but willing to seize power if they ever get back in office. I don’t think it’s good for the country, obviously, to have crazed lunacy as part of the national conversation, but there is something blogger Jon Schwarz called “The Iron Law of Institutions”–people act to preserve their power within the institution, not to help the institution as a whole. The institution in this case could be either the Republican Party or the country as a whole.
Regarding Jade Helm, apparently conservatives are now solid with military manuevers across the West, as long as sage grouse are the only ones placed under martial law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/us/politics/management-of-western-bird-becomes-focus-of-house-clash.html?_r=1
Regarding Jade Helm, apparently conservatives are now solid with military manuevers across the West, as long as sage grouse are the only ones placed under martial law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/us/politics/management-of-western-bird-becomes-focus-of-house-clash.html?_r=1
Regarding Jade Helm, apparently conservatives are now solid with military manuevers across the West, as long as sage grouse are the only ones placed under martial law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/us/politics/management-of-western-bird-becomes-focus-of-house-clash.html?_r=1
Fox isn’t in the policy biz. they’re in the business of telling viewers that the left is wrong, always. sometimes they have to get on the wrong idea of reality to make that point. they’re cheerleaders; they provide some bouncy blonde spectacle and give the fans simpleminded slogans to shout at the opposing team.
Fox isn’t in the policy biz. they’re in the business of telling viewers that the left is wrong, always. sometimes they have to get on the wrong idea of reality to make that point. they’re cheerleaders; they provide some bouncy blonde spectacle and give the fans simpleminded slogans to shout at the opposing team.
Fox isn’t in the policy biz. they’re in the business of telling viewers that the left is wrong, always. sometimes they have to get on the wrong idea of reality to make that point. they’re cheerleaders; they provide some bouncy blonde spectacle and give the fans simpleminded slogans to shout at the opposing team.
the wrong idea = the wrong side
the wrong idea = the wrong side
the wrong idea = the wrong side
That is, they know a lot of stuff that just is not, objectively, true. Feel free to offer up examples of any party and any ideology — whether they turned out to work well when tried, and under what constraints (e.g. enforced information isolation).
The People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ?
That is, they know a lot of stuff that just is not, objectively, true. Feel free to offer up examples of any party and any ideology — whether they turned out to work well when tried, and under what constraints (e.g. enforced information isolation).
The People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ?
That is, they know a lot of stuff that just is not, objectively, true. Feel free to offer up examples of any party and any ideology — whether they turned out to work well when tried, and under what constraints (e.g. enforced information isolation).
The People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ?
Ah, the joys of an open thread….
Did everybody notice that Ireland amended their constitution (by nationwide popular vote!) to allow gay marriage? How the world is changing — the best efforts to stop time in its tracks notwithstanding.
I wonder how Fox News is reporting that.
Ah, the joys of an open thread….
Did everybody notice that Ireland amended their constitution (by nationwide popular vote!) to allow gay marriage? How the world is changing — the best efforts to stop time in its tracks notwithstanding.
I wonder how Fox News is reporting that.
Ah, the joys of an open thread….
Did everybody notice that Ireland amended their constitution (by nationwide popular vote!) to allow gay marriage? How the world is changing — the best efforts to stop time in its tracks notwithstanding.
I wonder how Fox News is reporting that.
They’re using an AP story. I detect no particular slant.
They’re using an AP story. I detect no particular slant.
They’re using an AP story. I detect no particular slant.
I guess that means the battle is truly over — if Fox isn’t trying to make something out of it.
I guess that means the battle is truly over — if Fox isn’t trying to make something out of it.
I guess that means the battle is truly over — if Fox isn’t trying to make something out of it.
We decide – we can’t be bothered to report.
We decide – we can’t be bothered to report.
We decide – we can’t be bothered to report.
Things are, in some respects, easier in an autocracy. Nobody there cares, when making policy decisions, if the masses are mistaken in what they believe or in what respects.
This is, in fact, incorrect. For example, in the former East Germany, the Stasi and the communist party leadership were extremely concerned about the public opinion and devoted considerable resources to learn about it. In a closed society, the leaders cannot know how close the country is to an armed uprising, because censorship keeps the malcontent bottled up. Thus, if you wish to know what the people are thinking, you need to get your secret police to find out.
In extreme cases, this means that the politicians of a democratic society are able to pursue more unpopular policies than dictators. They have a greater understanding on how much margin they have before they risk losing power. In addition, they don’t need to be afraid of personal consequences of losing power. They will do fine in any case. This means that they can afford much more risk.
Things are, in some respects, easier in an autocracy. Nobody there cares, when making policy decisions, if the masses are mistaken in what they believe or in what respects.
This is, in fact, incorrect. For example, in the former East Germany, the Stasi and the communist party leadership were extremely concerned about the public opinion and devoted considerable resources to learn about it. In a closed society, the leaders cannot know how close the country is to an armed uprising, because censorship keeps the malcontent bottled up. Thus, if you wish to know what the people are thinking, you need to get your secret police to find out.
In extreme cases, this means that the politicians of a democratic society are able to pursue more unpopular policies than dictators. They have a greater understanding on how much margin they have before they risk losing power. In addition, they don’t need to be afraid of personal consequences of losing power. They will do fine in any case. This means that they can afford much more risk.
Things are, in some respects, easier in an autocracy. Nobody there cares, when making policy decisions, if the masses are mistaken in what they believe or in what respects.
This is, in fact, incorrect. For example, in the former East Germany, the Stasi and the communist party leadership were extremely concerned about the public opinion and devoted considerable resources to learn about it. In a closed society, the leaders cannot know how close the country is to an armed uprising, because censorship keeps the malcontent bottled up. Thus, if you wish to know what the people are thinking, you need to get your secret police to find out.
In extreme cases, this means that the politicians of a democratic society are able to pursue more unpopular policies than dictators. They have a greater understanding on how much margin they have before they risk losing power. In addition, they don’t need to be afraid of personal consequences of losing power. They will do fine in any case. This means that they can afford much more risk.
If one actually reads the paper, it becomes clear that the questions were hand picked to give a desired result. Many folks of a leftish bent like to have an easily-digestable headline which gives them permissikn to dismiss the opinions of non-leftists. “Studies” like these provide such headlines .. and little else.
If one actually reads the paper, it becomes clear that the questions were hand picked to give a desired result. Many folks of a leftish bent like to have an easily-digestable headline which gives them permissikn to dismiss the opinions of non-leftists. “Studies” like these provide such headlines .. and little else.
If one actually reads the paper, it becomes clear that the questions were hand picked to give a desired result. Many folks of a leftish bent like to have an easily-digestable headline which gives them permissikn to dismiss the opinions of non-leftists. “Studies” like these provide such headlines .. and little else.
It seems to be a “thing” on teh inturwebz to scream “FOX NEWS DID NOT COVER X!!!” when a simple google search can show otherwise. (An example exists in this very comment section…)
The interesting thing is that it’s an expression of the commenter’s ideological certitude about “Fox”, with no basis in any kind of empirical fact. The person making the claim is simply jerking his knee.
The questions in the paper headline-quoted above are of a similar vein : pick questions that you are likely to get the “wrong” knee jerk response for Fox News viewers and the “right” knee-jerk response for, say, Daily Show viewers.
I coild include the question “Did Fox New cover the Irish vote?” In a survey and “demonstrate” that reading Mother Jones causes “ignorance”, thatnks to the biases inherent in the question.
It seems to be a “thing” on teh inturwebz to scream “FOX NEWS DID NOT COVER X!!!” when a simple google search can show otherwise. (An example exists in this very comment section…)
The interesting thing is that it’s an expression of the commenter’s ideological certitude about “Fox”, with no basis in any kind of empirical fact. The person making the claim is simply jerking his knee.
The questions in the paper headline-quoted above are of a similar vein : pick questions that you are likely to get the “wrong” knee jerk response for Fox News viewers and the “right” knee-jerk response for, say, Daily Show viewers.
I coild include the question “Did Fox New cover the Irish vote?” In a survey and “demonstrate” that reading Mother Jones causes “ignorance”, thatnks to the biases inherent in the question.
It seems to be a “thing” on teh inturwebz to scream “FOX NEWS DID NOT COVER X!!!” when a simple google search can show otherwise. (An example exists in this very comment section…)
The interesting thing is that it’s an expression of the commenter’s ideological certitude about “Fox”, with no basis in any kind of empirical fact. The person making the claim is simply jerking his knee.
The questions in the paper headline-quoted above are of a similar vein : pick questions that you are likely to get the “wrong” knee jerk response for Fox News viewers and the “right” knee-jerk response for, say, Daily Show viewers.
I coild include the question “Did Fox New cover the Irish vote?” In a survey and “demonstrate” that reading Mother Jones causes “ignorance”, thatnks to the biases inherent in the question.
You could say the same thing about “The LIEBRAL MSM didn’t cover X!” claims.
Or even “Obama didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack”. That one worked out so very well, didn’t it?
You could say the same thing about “The LIEBRAL MSM didn’t cover X!” claims.
Or even “Obama didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack”. That one worked out so very well, didn’t it?
You could say the same thing about “The LIEBRAL MSM didn’t cover X!” claims.
Or even “Obama didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack”. That one worked out so very well, didn’t it?
“You could say the same thing about “The LIEBRAL MSM didn’t cover X!” claims”
So? We have an actual example of a knee-jerk false claim about Fox right here right now. How ’bout folks take responsibilty for what they say… and learn from doing so? Excusing bad behavior because “all the other kids do it” shoild be left on the grade school yard.
‘Or even “Obama didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack”.’
Not sure how the Obama admkns Benghazi flubs are relevant here. What difference, at this point, does it make?
“You could say the same thing about “The LIEBRAL MSM didn’t cover X!” claims”
So? We have an actual example of a knee-jerk false claim about Fox right here right now. How ’bout folks take responsibilty for what they say… and learn from doing so? Excusing bad behavior because “all the other kids do it” shoild be left on the grade school yard.
‘Or even “Obama didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack”.’
Not sure how the Obama admkns Benghazi flubs are relevant here. What difference, at this point, does it make?
“You could say the same thing about “The LIEBRAL MSM didn’t cover X!” claims”
So? We have an actual example of a knee-jerk false claim about Fox right here right now. How ’bout folks take responsibilty for what they say… and learn from doing so? Excusing bad behavior because “all the other kids do it” shoild be left on the grade school yard.
‘Or even “Obama didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack”.’
Not sure how the Obama admkns Benghazi flubs are relevant here. What difference, at this point, does it make?
This probably happened because the lady in question was suffering from the mid-partum blues, I expect, rather than anything FOX may have covered or not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/holly-solomon-ran-over-husband
This probably happened because the lady in question was suffering from the mid-partum blues, I expect, rather than anything FOX may have covered or not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/holly-solomon-ran-over-husband
This probably happened because the lady in question was suffering from the mid-partum blues, I expect, rather than anything FOX may have covered or not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/holly-solomon-ran-over-husband
shorter DRH: they cheated because they picked things everyone knows Fox lies about!
shorter DRH: they cheated because they picked things everyone knows Fox lies about!
shorter DRH: they cheated because they picked things everyone knows Fox lies about!
Given the entire Universe of things that a news org *could* report on, it seems rather ridiculous to complain that they didn’t cover your own pet issue.
In addition, those of X persuasion, that tend to watch “news for Xers”, are unlikely to be terribly well informed as to which news items are ignored by “news for anti-Xers”.
There are plenty of lies & distortions out there without having to invent reasons to be outraged, unless you really, really want to be outraged, and are just picking a convenient excuse.
Given the entire Universe of things that a news org *could* report on, it seems rather ridiculous to complain that they didn’t cover your own pet issue.
In addition, those of X persuasion, that tend to watch “news for Xers”, are unlikely to be terribly well informed as to which news items are ignored by “news for anti-Xers”.
There are plenty of lies & distortions out there without having to invent reasons to be outraged, unless you really, really want to be outraged, and are just picking a convenient excuse.
Given the entire Universe of things that a news org *could* report on, it seems rather ridiculous to complain that they didn’t cover your own pet issue.
In addition, those of X persuasion, that tend to watch “news for Xers”, are unlikely to be terribly well informed as to which news items are ignored by “news for anti-Xers”.
There are plenty of lies & distortions out there without having to invent reasons to be outraged, unless you really, really want to be outraged, and are just picking a convenient excuse.
There’s certainly no point in being upset because a story you care about didn’t get covered, or because some set of people are uninformed.
But when people are misinformed, that’s a different discussion.
If you don’t know that business X is six blocks north of here, that may be inconvenient. (Not to mention bad for business X.) But you can always ask for directions if you decide that you want to go there.
However, if you think you know it is 10 blocks south-east of here? Then you have a problem — because you aren’t likely to ask for information until you have gone out of your way. And even once you get there and don’t find it, you can decide that it either went out of business or didn’t exist in the first place. So you still don’t ask for directions.
There’s certainly no point in being upset because a story you care about didn’t get covered, or because some set of people are uninformed.
But when people are misinformed, that’s a different discussion.
If you don’t know that business X is six blocks north of here, that may be inconvenient. (Not to mention bad for business X.) But you can always ask for directions if you decide that you want to go there.
However, if you think you know it is 10 blocks south-east of here? Then you have a problem — because you aren’t likely to ask for information until you have gone out of your way. And even once you get there and don’t find it, you can decide that it either went out of business or didn’t exist in the first place. So you still don’t ask for directions.
There’s certainly no point in being upset because a story you care about didn’t get covered, or because some set of people are uninformed.
But when people are misinformed, that’s a different discussion.
If you don’t know that business X is six blocks north of here, that may be inconvenient. (Not to mention bad for business X.) But you can always ask for directions if you decide that you want to go there.
However, if you think you know it is 10 blocks south-east of here? Then you have a problem — because you aren’t likely to ask for information until you have gone out of your way. And even once you get there and don’t find it, you can decide that it either went out of business or didn’t exist in the first place. So you still don’t ask for directions.
Interesting point wj.
Have you ever had someone ask you for directions, and then you see them do almost the exact opposite?
“Which way to the interstate”
“Just go straight to the next light, then turn left; it’ll be just a few blocks ahead of you then”
And they turn right at the light. Now, perhaps they just wanted to get their bearings, and they had some other stuff to deal with. Or perhaps they mix up left and right. Who knows?
Or, just perhaps it’s a case of “ask a LIEBRAL, and do the OPPOSITE” (as if I was, or that anyone could tell); in which case they’re going to drive a long long time before they come to an interstate.
People are weird.
Interesting point wj.
Have you ever had someone ask you for directions, and then you see them do almost the exact opposite?
“Which way to the interstate”
“Just go straight to the next light, then turn left; it’ll be just a few blocks ahead of you then”
And they turn right at the light. Now, perhaps they just wanted to get their bearings, and they had some other stuff to deal with. Or perhaps they mix up left and right. Who knows?
Or, just perhaps it’s a case of “ask a LIEBRAL, and do the OPPOSITE” (as if I was, or that anyone could tell); in which case they’re going to drive a long long time before they come to an interstate.
People are weird.
Interesting point wj.
Have you ever had someone ask you for directions, and then you see them do almost the exact opposite?
“Which way to the interstate”
“Just go straight to the next light, then turn left; it’ll be just a few blocks ahead of you then”
And they turn right at the light. Now, perhaps they just wanted to get their bearings, and they had some other stuff to deal with. Or perhaps they mix up left and right. Who knows?
Or, just perhaps it’s a case of “ask a LIEBRAL, and do the OPPOSITE” (as if I was, or that anyone could tell); in which case they’re going to drive a long long time before they come to an interstate.
People are weird.
Just testing.
Just testing.
Just testing.
I’m always fascinated by those who say that they just ask someone (liberal, conservative, whatever) for advice/opinion and then do/advocate the opposite.
I keep wondering if any of the folks they know, who are aware of their clever approach, ever try to mousetrap them by suggesting something that they don’t want, just to get the “do the opposite” guy to push for what they actually want. Sort of like how you can get an amzing number of Republicans, even when officially conservative, to oppose a conservative proposal just by having Obama come out in favor of it.
I’m always fascinated by those who say that they just ask someone (liberal, conservative, whatever) for advice/opinion and then do/advocate the opposite.
I keep wondering if any of the folks they know, who are aware of their clever approach, ever try to mousetrap them by suggesting something that they don’t want, just to get the “do the opposite” guy to push for what they actually want. Sort of like how you can get an amzing number of Republicans, even when officially conservative, to oppose a conservative proposal just by having Obama come out in favor of it.
I’m always fascinated by those who say that they just ask someone (liberal, conservative, whatever) for advice/opinion and then do/advocate the opposite.
I keep wondering if any of the folks they know, who are aware of their clever approach, ever try to mousetrap them by suggesting something that they don’t want, just to get the “do the opposite” guy to push for what they actually want. Sort of like how you can get an amzing number of Republicans, even when officially conservative, to oppose a conservative proposal just by having Obama come out in favor of it.
We have an actual example of a knee-jerk false claim about Fox right here right now.
Can you quote this claim? All I’ve seen is someone wondering how they would cover the Irish vote, someone demonstrating an example of how they did cover it, and someone opining on their not “making something out of it.”
We have an actual example of a knee-jerk false claim about Fox right here right now.
Can you quote this claim? All I’ve seen is someone wondering how they would cover the Irish vote, someone demonstrating an example of how they did cover it, and someone opining on their not “making something out of it.”
We have an actual example of a knee-jerk false claim about Fox right here right now.
Can you quote this claim? All I’ve seen is someone wondering how they would cover the Irish vote, someone demonstrating an example of how they did cover it, and someone opining on their not “making something out of it.”
I’d like to know if THIS is going to interfere with Obama’s efforts to impose martial law in Texas?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/obama-promises-federal-aid-flood-ravaged-texas/
It says FEMA personnel will be on hand, which can only mean FEMA death camps are right around the corner.
I’m all for executing parasites who make off with my tax money, but I hope they don’t hurt the six Texans I happen to think a lot of.
I wonder if the FOX pigs will report this and if Big Hog Ailes is haranguing his troops in the morning briefing to hammer home suspicious goings-on with FEMA and other federal personnel in Texas, like, I don’t know, converting deserving conservative Texans into soylent green so at least Obamacare enrollees have something to eat after they are thrown off the insurance rolls and go bankrupt?
Can we expect Alex Jones to feature photographs of jackbooted FEMA thugs ushering elderly Texans away from flood waters into unmarked vans for their appearance before the Death Panels.
One can only hope.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-iranians-are-liars
Just wanted to chime in, a la Lindsay Graham, that I’ve run across plenty of cracker Confederates in seedy South Carolina bars hustling this and that and pound for pound, male and female alike, the only time they don’t lie and cheat at cards, darts, and thumb-wrestling is when they recount the last time they accompanied their granddaddies to the lynching tree. Racist jagoffs, even the women, each and every one, despite all the black children they sired via the Strom Thurmond Dating Hotline.
Best to shoot first and ask questions later with these types. You’ll never be sorry.
FOX murders, we seek vengeance.
One can only hope for an outbreak of swine flu in this country.
I’d like to know if THIS is going to interfere with Obama’s efforts to impose martial law in Texas?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/obama-promises-federal-aid-flood-ravaged-texas/
It says FEMA personnel will be on hand, which can only mean FEMA death camps are right around the corner.
I’m all for executing parasites who make off with my tax money, but I hope they don’t hurt the six Texans I happen to think a lot of.
I wonder if the FOX pigs will report this and if Big Hog Ailes is haranguing his troops in the morning briefing to hammer home suspicious goings-on with FEMA and other federal personnel in Texas, like, I don’t know, converting deserving conservative Texans into soylent green so at least Obamacare enrollees have something to eat after they are thrown off the insurance rolls and go bankrupt?
Can we expect Alex Jones to feature photographs of jackbooted FEMA thugs ushering elderly Texans away from flood waters into unmarked vans for their appearance before the Death Panels.
One can only hope.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-iranians-are-liars
Just wanted to chime in, a la Lindsay Graham, that I’ve run across plenty of cracker Confederates in seedy South Carolina bars hustling this and that and pound for pound, male and female alike, the only time they don’t lie and cheat at cards, darts, and thumb-wrestling is when they recount the last time they accompanied their granddaddies to the lynching tree. Racist jagoffs, even the women, each and every one, despite all the black children they sired via the Strom Thurmond Dating Hotline.
Best to shoot first and ask questions later with these types. You’ll never be sorry.
FOX murders, we seek vengeance.
One can only hope for an outbreak of swine flu in this country.
I’d like to know if THIS is going to interfere with Obama’s efforts to impose martial law in Texas?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/obama-promises-federal-aid-flood-ravaged-texas/
It says FEMA personnel will be on hand, which can only mean FEMA death camps are right around the corner.
I’m all for executing parasites who make off with my tax money, but I hope they don’t hurt the six Texans I happen to think a lot of.
I wonder if the FOX pigs will report this and if Big Hog Ailes is haranguing his troops in the morning briefing to hammer home suspicious goings-on with FEMA and other federal personnel in Texas, like, I don’t know, converting deserving conservative Texans into soylent green so at least Obamacare enrollees have something to eat after they are thrown off the insurance rolls and go bankrupt?
Can we expect Alex Jones to feature photographs of jackbooted FEMA thugs ushering elderly Texans away from flood waters into unmarked vans for their appearance before the Death Panels.
One can only hope.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-iranians-are-liars
Just wanted to chime in, a la Lindsay Graham, that I’ve run across plenty of cracker Confederates in seedy South Carolina bars hustling this and that and pound for pound, male and female alike, the only time they don’t lie and cheat at cards, darts, and thumb-wrestling is when they recount the last time they accompanied their granddaddies to the lynching tree. Racist jagoffs, even the women, each and every one, despite all the black children they sired via the Strom Thurmond Dating Hotline.
Best to shoot first and ask questions later with these types. You’ll never be sorry.
FOX murders, we seek vengeance.
One can only hope for an outbreak of swine flu in this country.
Cool yer jets, Count. You’re coming too close to the “no ad hominem, also, don’t be an asshole” line.
Cool yer jets, Count. You’re coming too close to the “no ad hominem, also, don’t be an asshole” line.
Cool yer jets, Count. You’re coming too close to the “no ad hominem, also, don’t be an asshole” line.
As for the substance of the actual post:
I don’t think Fox News is a tool of the Republican Party, I think the Republican Party is, much of the time, a tool of Fox News.
Look at the upcoming GOP primary season, and remember what it was like in 2012 and 2008, with one candidate after another surging to the front of the pack and then falling back, and the profoundly unserious, sound-bite driven way they campaigned. This doesn’t look like politics, it looks like reality TV.
And that’s why we get things like voting to repeal Obamacare 56 times. It’s a phenomenal waste of time and energy, and makes it impossible for Republicans to actually have *policies* about health care issues — but it works on Fox News.
As for the substance of the actual post:
I don’t think Fox News is a tool of the Republican Party, I think the Republican Party is, much of the time, a tool of Fox News.
Look at the upcoming GOP primary season, and remember what it was like in 2012 and 2008, with one candidate after another surging to the front of the pack and then falling back, and the profoundly unserious, sound-bite driven way they campaigned. This doesn’t look like politics, it looks like reality TV.
And that’s why we get things like voting to repeal Obamacare 56 times. It’s a phenomenal waste of time and energy, and makes it impossible for Republicans to actually have *policies* about health care issues — but it works on Fox News.
As for the substance of the actual post:
I don’t think Fox News is a tool of the Republican Party, I think the Republican Party is, much of the time, a tool of Fox News.
Look at the upcoming GOP primary season, and remember what it was like in 2012 and 2008, with one candidate after another surging to the front of the pack and then falling back, and the profoundly unserious, sound-bite driven way they campaigned. This doesn’t look like politics, it looks like reality TV.
And that’s why we get things like voting to repeal Obamacare 56 times. It’s a phenomenal waste of time and energy, and makes it impossible for Republicans to actually have *policies* about health care issues — but it works on Fox News.
[…]
The reliably liberal Frank Rich appreciates better than most Fox’s essential harmlessness. In a piece published last year in New York, he concluded that aside from infuriating liberals, Fox flexes little political power. The median age of a Fox viewer is 68, eight years older than the MSBNC and CNN median age, and its median age is rising. “Fox is in essence a retirement community,” Rich writes, and a small one at that!…
[…]
What Liberals Still Don’t Understand About Fox News
[…]
The reliably liberal Frank Rich appreciates better than most Fox’s essential harmlessness. In a piece published last year in New York, he concluded that aside from infuriating liberals, Fox flexes little political power. The median age of a Fox viewer is 68, eight years older than the MSBNC and CNN median age, and its median age is rising. “Fox is in essence a retirement community,” Rich writes, and a small one at that!…
[…]
What Liberals Still Don’t Understand About Fox News
[…]
The reliably liberal Frank Rich appreciates better than most Fox’s essential harmlessness. In a piece published last year in New York, he concluded that aside from infuriating liberals, Fox flexes little political power. The median age of a Fox viewer is 68, eight years older than the MSBNC and CNN median age, and its median age is rising. “Fox is in essence a retirement community,” Rich writes, and a small one at that!…
[…]
What Liberals Still Don’t Understand About Fox News
“and makes it impossible for Republicans to actually have *policies* about health care issues”
If I were a violin player rather than an asshole, I’d play one.
“and makes it impossible for Republicans to actually have *policies* about health care issues”
If I were a violin player rather than an asshole, I’d play one.
“and makes it impossible for Republicans to actually have *policies* about health care issues”
If I were a violin player rather than an asshole, I’d play one.
Fox flexes little political power
is an assertion without much evidence to back it up.
Fox flexes little political power
is an assertion without much evidence to back it up.
Fox flexes little political power
is an assertion without much evidence to back it up.
Cool yer jets, Count
Yes, seconded.
It’s actually against the posting rules to call for the assassination of any person, excluding actual military targets. Repeatedly stating that large groups of folks deserve killing comes too close to that line for comfort, IMO.
So, please, no further calls to shoot first and ask question later, and no further hopes for swine flu epidemics.
I think you see what I’m getting at.
I think we all – or at least most of us – know you have no plans to kill anybody, and are not literally calling for a program of targeted assassinations, but I think it makes it hard for a lot of folks to participate in the conversation.
It’s like trying to have a conversation when one of the parties at the table is yelling through a megaphone.
Maybe cleek can cook us up a new pie filter. For “shoot”, substitute “cream pie”, used as a verb. Then, angry commenters can let their freak flag fly, and the rest of us can have a laugh.
But better still, just dial the harsh-o-meter back from “violent” to something like “polite anger”.
Please.
Cool yer jets, Count
Yes, seconded.
It’s actually against the posting rules to call for the assassination of any person, excluding actual military targets. Repeatedly stating that large groups of folks deserve killing comes too close to that line for comfort, IMO.
So, please, no further calls to shoot first and ask question later, and no further hopes for swine flu epidemics.
I think you see what I’m getting at.
I think we all – or at least most of us – know you have no plans to kill anybody, and are not literally calling for a program of targeted assassinations, but I think it makes it hard for a lot of folks to participate in the conversation.
It’s like trying to have a conversation when one of the parties at the table is yelling through a megaphone.
Maybe cleek can cook us up a new pie filter. For “shoot”, substitute “cream pie”, used as a verb. Then, angry commenters can let their freak flag fly, and the rest of us can have a laugh.
But better still, just dial the harsh-o-meter back from “violent” to something like “polite anger”.
Please.
Cool yer jets, Count
Yes, seconded.
It’s actually against the posting rules to call for the assassination of any person, excluding actual military targets. Repeatedly stating that large groups of folks deserve killing comes too close to that line for comfort, IMO.
So, please, no further calls to shoot first and ask question later, and no further hopes for swine flu epidemics.
I think you see what I’m getting at.
I think we all – or at least most of us – know you have no plans to kill anybody, and are not literally calling for a program of targeted assassinations, but I think it makes it hard for a lot of folks to participate in the conversation.
It’s like trying to have a conversation when one of the parties at the table is yelling through a megaphone.
Maybe cleek can cook us up a new pie filter. For “shoot”, substitute “cream pie”, used as a verb. Then, angry commenters can let their freak flag fly, and the rest of us can have a laugh.
But better still, just dial the harsh-o-meter back from “violent” to something like “polite anger”.
Please.
What russell and the Doc said.
That aside:
Makes me think of: “You have another target in mind? A military target?”
My mind works (or doesn’t, sometimes) in mysterious ways.
What russell and the Doc said.
That aside:
Makes me think of: “You have another target in mind? A military target?”
My mind works (or doesn’t, sometimes) in mysterious ways.
What russell and the Doc said.
That aside:
Makes me think of: “You have another target in mind? A military target?”
My mind works (or doesn’t, sometimes) in mysterious ways.
heh.
reminds me of this classic Seinfeld scene.
heh.
reminds me of this classic Seinfeld scene.
heh.
reminds me of this classic Seinfeld scene.
I so hope Scott Walker is the GOP’s nominee.
I so hope Scott Walker is the GOP’s nominee.
I so hope Scott Walker is the GOP’s nominee.
Well, I’m not married to it, so OK.
Well, I’m not married to it, so OK.
Well, I’m not married to it, so OK.
I think we’re going to need more cream pies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/augustus-sealy-pastor-shooting-lgbt
Armed by the conservative junta with both rhetoric and guns.
I think we’re going to need more cream pies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/augustus-sealy-pastor-shooting-lgbt
Armed by the conservative junta with both rhetoric and guns.
I think we’re going to need more cream pies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/augustus-sealy-pastor-shooting-lgbt
Armed by the conservative junta with both rhetoric and guns.
Fallows on FOX. He takes Doctor Science’s view that FOX somehow encumbers and hurts the Republican brand, preventing it from governing, rather than the Republican Party using FOX as its tool.
I think the relationship is much more symbiotic and harmful to the country rather than to just the beleaguered Republican Party, who last I looked, cleaned liberal clock in elections across the board.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-fox-news-is-hurting-the-republicans/393485/
OK.
A difference in degree in what follows, but conservatives in other times and places have finagled the media to spread their message of hate for the Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars
http://www.rwandanstories.org/origins/cheap_tricks.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/radio_nazi_germany.htm
Fallows on FOX. He takes Doctor Science’s view that FOX somehow encumbers and hurts the Republican brand, preventing it from governing, rather than the Republican Party using FOX as its tool.
I think the relationship is much more symbiotic and harmful to the country rather than to just the beleaguered Republican Party, who last I looked, cleaned liberal clock in elections across the board.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-fox-news-is-hurting-the-republicans/393485/
OK.
A difference in degree in what follows, but conservatives in other times and places have finagled the media to spread their message of hate for the Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars
http://www.rwandanstories.org/origins/cheap_tricks.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/radio_nazi_germany.htm
Fallows on FOX. He takes Doctor Science’s view that FOX somehow encumbers and hurts the Republican brand, preventing it from governing, rather than the Republican Party using FOX as its tool.
I think the relationship is much more symbiotic and harmful to the country rather than to just the beleaguered Republican Party, who last I looked, cleaned liberal clock in elections across the board.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-fox-news-is-hurting-the-republicans/393485/
OK.
A difference in degree in what follows, but conservatives in other times and places have finagled the media to spread their message of hate for the Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars
http://www.rwandanstories.org/origins/cheap_tricks.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/radio_nazi_germany.htm
Fallows on FOX. He takes Doctor Science’s view that FOX somehow encumbers and hurts the Republican brand, preventing it from governing, rather than the Republican Party using FOX as its tool.
I think the relationship is much more symbiotic and harmful to the country rather than to just the beleaguered Republican Party, who last I looked, cleaned liberal clock in elections across the board.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-fox-news-is-hurting-the-republicans/393485/
OK.
A difference in degree in what follows, but conservatives in other times and places have finagled the media to spread their message of hate for the Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars
http://www.rwandanstories.org/origins/cheap_tricks.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/radio_nazi_germany.htm
Fallows on FOX. He takes Doctor Science’s view that FOX somehow encumbers and hurts the Republican brand, preventing it from governing, rather than the Republican Party using FOX as its tool.
I think the relationship is much more symbiotic and harmful to the country rather than to just the beleaguered Republican Party, who last I looked, cleaned liberal clock in elections across the board.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-fox-news-is-hurting-the-republicans/393485/
OK.
A difference in degree in what follows, but conservatives in other times and places have finagled the media to spread their message of hate for the Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars
http://www.rwandanstories.org/origins/cheap_tricks.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/radio_nazi_germany.htm
Fallows on FOX. He takes Doctor Science’s view that FOX somehow encumbers and hurts the Republican brand, preventing it from governing, rather than the Republican Party using FOX as its tool.
I think the relationship is much more symbiotic and harmful to the country rather than to just the beleaguered Republican Party, who last I looked, cleaned liberal clock in elections across the board.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-fox-news-is-hurting-the-republicans/393485/
OK.
A difference in degree in what follows, but conservatives in other times and places have finagled the media to spread their message of hate for the Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars
http://www.rwandanstories.org/origins/cheap_tricks.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/radio_nazi_germany.htm
Sorry for the double post, among other things.
Sorry for the double post, among other things.
Sorry for the double post, among other things.
Maybe this guy should be splattered by the cream pies of liberty:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kory-watkins-arrest-lawmakers-open-carry
The law passed and was signed by the Governor at this guy’s behest.
He actually will shoot someone in the head.
In the meantime, he’s probably getting Federal flood money too, now that Ted Cruz and company got their feet wet because of a little rain despite voting against Federal aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
We’re in the hands are armed psychopaths..
Can’t we at least add a hardening agent to our cream pie fillings to stun them while we run for our lives?
Maybe this guy should be splattered by the cream pies of liberty:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kory-watkins-arrest-lawmakers-open-carry
The law passed and was signed by the Governor at this guy’s behest.
He actually will shoot someone in the head.
In the meantime, he’s probably getting Federal flood money too, now that Ted Cruz and company got their feet wet because of a little rain despite voting against Federal aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
We’re in the hands are armed psychopaths..
Can’t we at least add a hardening agent to our cream pie fillings to stun them while we run for our lives?
Maybe this guy should be splattered by the cream pies of liberty:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kory-watkins-arrest-lawmakers-open-carry
The law passed and was signed by the Governor at this guy’s behest.
He actually will shoot someone in the head.
In the meantime, he’s probably getting Federal flood money too, now that Ted Cruz and company got their feet wet because of a little rain despite voting against Federal aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
We’re in the hands are armed psychopaths..
Can’t we at least add a hardening agent to our cream pie fillings to stun them while we run for our lives?
But Count, isn’t the whole point of the cream pies to make their hands so slippery that they can’t hold on to their guns…?
But Count, isn’t the whole point of the cream pies to make their hands so slippery that they can’t hold on to their guns…?
But Count, isn’t the whole point of the cream pies to make their hands so slippery that they can’t hold on to their guns…?
… from my wet, sticky hand!
… from my wet, sticky hand!
… from my wet, sticky hand!
Can’t we at least add a hardening agent to our cream pie fillings to stun them while we run for our lives?
I say line the streets with banana peels and let them take their chances.
I’m completely unclear on how this guy’s comments fall short of felony assault in TX. I’m likewise unclear on why folks there put up with it.
Different strokes, I guess. Stay the hell out of my state, cowboy.
Can’t we at least add a hardening agent to our cream pie fillings to stun them while we run for our lives?
I say line the streets with banana peels and let them take their chances.
I’m completely unclear on how this guy’s comments fall short of felony assault in TX. I’m likewise unclear on why folks there put up with it.
Different strokes, I guess. Stay the hell out of my state, cowboy.
Can’t we at least add a hardening agent to our cream pie fillings to stun them while we run for our lives?
I say line the streets with banana peels and let them take their chances.
I’m completely unclear on how this guy’s comments fall short of felony assault in TX. I’m likewise unclear on why folks there put up with it.
Different strokes, I guess. Stay the hell out of my state, cowboy.
Good questions.
View this video of a confrontation forced on a Texas Democrat last year in his State House Office by the same group. The anti-American c*cksucking conservative pig at the end of the video, off camera, can be heard threatening the lawmaker, edging him to make a move.
http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/panic-buttons-coming-to-texas-house-after-open-carry-confrontation/
He’s the prizewinner threatening to hang all lawmakers who voted against the open carry bill just signed by the subhuman filth they elected Governor down there.
Never mind his baby-voiced little twit colleague in the video whining about “tyranny of the Constitution”. When he gets done cleaning my toilet with his tongue, try and make a citizen’s arrest on me, Gomer.
They had to install “panic buttons” in the State House office to indulge these murderous mofos, so that when they showed up brandishing their weapons, the reps could call the Capital Guard.
What are they gonna do?
Why doesn’t Texas just put the Comanche back in control and be done with it.
This is what the NRA and conservatives want for the rest of the country as well.
We have to put up with a8sholes carrying guns openly.
I won’t put up with it.
Someone’s going to be shot. These weapons are meant to be used.
If it’s a Republican, they’ll pass more laws to indulge the dicks*cking gun fetishists; maybe you can carry two guns and a bandolero, and a live grenade for good measure.
In the article I cite, the Texas Democrat who was confronted and who is against open carry says he owns more guns than his attackers put together and even has a shooting range on his property.
He was restrained during the confrontation.
I wouldn’t have been. I hate conservative bullying pigfilth like that.
By the time I was done with that f*ck, Watkins, the corridors of the State House would have been a hell of a mess. Cream pie filling (mine) and blood (theirs) all over the place.
Mr Watkins would have been rushed to the emergency room with a panic button shoved so far up his fundament, even his mother’s Medicaid for shitheads wouldn’t have covered it.
And after he was safely in the ambulance, I’d look up his swine mother and his subhuman children too to as a part of my outreach to low IQ constituents.
Good questions.
View this video of a confrontation forced on a Texas Democrat last year in his State House Office by the same group. The anti-American c*cksucking conservative pig at the end of the video, off camera, can be heard threatening the lawmaker, edging him to make a move.
http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/panic-buttons-coming-to-texas-house-after-open-carry-confrontation/
He’s the prizewinner threatening to hang all lawmakers who voted against the open carry bill just signed by the subhuman filth they elected Governor down there.
Never mind his baby-voiced little twit colleague in the video whining about “tyranny of the Constitution”. When he gets done cleaning my toilet with his tongue, try and make a citizen’s arrest on me, Gomer.
They had to install “panic buttons” in the State House office to indulge these murderous mofos, so that when they showed up brandishing their weapons, the reps could call the Capital Guard.
What are they gonna do?
Why doesn’t Texas just put the Comanche back in control and be done with it.
This is what the NRA and conservatives want for the rest of the country as well.
We have to put up with a8sholes carrying guns openly.
I won’t put up with it.
Someone’s going to be shot. These weapons are meant to be used.
If it’s a Republican, they’ll pass more laws to indulge the dicks*cking gun fetishists; maybe you can carry two guns and a bandolero, and a live grenade for good measure.
In the article I cite, the Texas Democrat who was confronted and who is against open carry says he owns more guns than his attackers put together and even has a shooting range on his property.
He was restrained during the confrontation.
I wouldn’t have been. I hate conservative bullying pigfilth like that.
By the time I was done with that f*ck, Watkins, the corridors of the State House would have been a hell of a mess. Cream pie filling (mine) and blood (theirs) all over the place.
Mr Watkins would have been rushed to the emergency room with a panic button shoved so far up his fundament, even his mother’s Medicaid for shitheads wouldn’t have covered it.
And after he was safely in the ambulance, I’d look up his swine mother and his subhuman children too to as a part of my outreach to low IQ constituents.
Good questions.
View this video of a confrontation forced on a Texas Democrat last year in his State House Office by the same group. The anti-American c*cksucking conservative pig at the end of the video, off camera, can be heard threatening the lawmaker, edging him to make a move.
http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/panic-buttons-coming-to-texas-house-after-open-carry-confrontation/
He’s the prizewinner threatening to hang all lawmakers who voted against the open carry bill just signed by the subhuman filth they elected Governor down there.
Never mind his baby-voiced little twit colleague in the video whining about “tyranny of the Constitution”. When he gets done cleaning my toilet with his tongue, try and make a citizen’s arrest on me, Gomer.
They had to install “panic buttons” in the State House office to indulge these murderous mofos, so that when they showed up brandishing their weapons, the reps could call the Capital Guard.
What are they gonna do?
Why doesn’t Texas just put the Comanche back in control and be done with it.
This is what the NRA and conservatives want for the rest of the country as well.
We have to put up with a8sholes carrying guns openly.
I won’t put up with it.
Someone’s going to be shot. These weapons are meant to be used.
If it’s a Republican, they’ll pass more laws to indulge the dicks*cking gun fetishists; maybe you can carry two guns and a bandolero, and a live grenade for good measure.
In the article I cite, the Texas Democrat who was confronted and who is against open carry says he owns more guns than his attackers put together and even has a shooting range on his property.
He was restrained during the confrontation.
I wouldn’t have been. I hate conservative bullying pigfilth like that.
By the time I was done with that f*ck, Watkins, the corridors of the State House would have been a hell of a mess. Cream pie filling (mine) and blood (theirs) all over the place.
Mr Watkins would have been rushed to the emergency room with a panic button shoved so far up his fundament, even his mother’s Medicaid for shitheads wouldn’t have covered it.
And after he was safely in the ambulance, I’d look up his swine mother and his subhuman children too to as a part of my outreach to low IQ constituents.
I do not support the Count’s comments when they call for killing people. Even if as a form of humor, however bitter.
I support and share, completely and without reservation, his contempt for punks who think a gun gives them the right to bully other people.
Rep Fischer was, in fact, more than measured in his response to the folks who paid a visit to his office. All parties involved owe him a debt of gratitude.
I do not support the Count’s comments when they call for killing people. Even if as a form of humor, however bitter.
I support and share, completely and without reservation, his contempt for punks who think a gun gives them the right to bully other people.
Rep Fischer was, in fact, more than measured in his response to the folks who paid a visit to his office. All parties involved owe him a debt of gratitude.
I do not support the Count’s comments when they call for killing people. Even if as a form of humor, however bitter.
I support and share, completely and without reservation, his contempt for punks who think a gun gives them the right to bully other people.
Rep Fischer was, in fact, more than measured in his response to the folks who paid a visit to his office. All parties involved owe him a debt of gratitude.
The Count did not actually “call for” killing people, but let that pass.
Politeness of language is over-rated. People have been known to justify torture in polite and civil tones, for instance. And other people have been known to denounce them with immoderate stridency. It’s not a close call which of those kinds of people are more offensive — or more dangerous.
–TP
The Count did not actually “call for” killing people, but let that pass.
Politeness of language is over-rated. People have been known to justify torture in polite and civil tones, for instance. And other people have been known to denounce them with immoderate stridency. It’s not a close call which of those kinds of people are more offensive — or more dangerous.
–TP
The Count did not actually “call for” killing people, but let that pass.
Politeness of language is over-rated. People have been known to justify torture in polite and civil tones, for instance. And other people have been known to denounce them with immoderate stridency. It’s not a close call which of those kinds of people are more offensive — or more dangerous.
–TP
I’ve never once requested endorsement for my views by anyone on these boards in my infinite time at OBWI.
I say what I say. Take it or leave it.
There is no one here I hold in more esteem at OBWI than the true human being, Russell, which is not to say that my esteem for anyone else should be minimized, including the fine remaining conservatives who call this home.
But these, what are they, they call themselves conservatives, who are ascendant, are insane.
Their mistake is arming everyone.
Any of Watkins’ or the Governor’s armed threats against decent Americans would be responded to in self-defense, and self-defense only, in fine conservative fashion.
We have to live with panic buttons now to humor the armed filth in the Republican and Libertarian Parties?
No.
Never.
I’ve never once requested endorsement for my views by anyone on these boards in my infinite time at OBWI.
I say what I say. Take it or leave it.
There is no one here I hold in more esteem at OBWI than the true human being, Russell, which is not to say that my esteem for anyone else should be minimized, including the fine remaining conservatives who call this home.
But these, what are they, they call themselves conservatives, who are ascendant, are insane.
Their mistake is arming everyone.
Any of Watkins’ or the Governor’s armed threats against decent Americans would be responded to in self-defense, and self-defense only, in fine conservative fashion.
We have to live with panic buttons now to humor the armed filth in the Republican and Libertarian Parties?
No.
Never.
I’ve never once requested endorsement for my views by anyone on these boards in my infinite time at OBWI.
I say what I say. Take it or leave it.
There is no one here I hold in more esteem at OBWI than the true human being, Russell, which is not to say that my esteem for anyone else should be minimized, including the fine remaining conservatives who call this home.
But these, what are they, they call themselves conservatives, who are ascendant, are insane.
Their mistake is arming everyone.
Any of Watkins’ or the Governor’s armed threats against decent Americans would be responded to in self-defense, and self-defense only, in fine conservative fashion.
We have to live with panic buttons now to humor the armed filth in the Republican and Libertarian Parties?
No.
Never.
Count makes a very good, yet somewhat indirect, point as to why it’s such a GOOD idea to hold the Jade Helm exercise in Texas.
They’re practicing the re-taking of Fallujah, currently held by heavily armed fundamentalist crazies.
Me, I think that’s too much trouble; just bust out a 1Mt warhead and be done with it. But, by all means, practice on Texas first.
BTW, anyone know Dubya’s GPS? Asking for a friend.
Count makes a very good, yet somewhat indirect, point as to why it’s such a GOOD idea to hold the Jade Helm exercise in Texas.
They’re practicing the re-taking of Fallujah, currently held by heavily armed fundamentalist crazies.
Me, I think that’s too much trouble; just bust out a 1Mt warhead and be done with it. But, by all means, practice on Texas first.
BTW, anyone know Dubya’s GPS? Asking for a friend.
Count makes a very good, yet somewhat indirect, point as to why it’s such a GOOD idea to hold the Jade Helm exercise in Texas.
They’re practicing the re-taking of Fallujah, currently held by heavily armed fundamentalist crazies.
Me, I think that’s too much trouble; just bust out a 1Mt warhead and be done with it. But, by all means, practice on Texas first.
BTW, anyone know Dubya’s GPS? Asking for a friend.
The Count did not actually “call for” killing people, but let that pass.
Fair enough.
I’m just trying to keep ObWi a place where everybody feels comfortable hanging out.
But these, what are they, they call themselves conservatives, who are ascendant, are insane.
Yes, I agree with this.
To me, personally, when the conversation devolves to threats of violence and mayhem, then the conversation is over.
If your response to the political process yielding results that you don’t like is to start waving your guns around, then we have a problem for which the political process is no longer a remedy.
If folks really want a war, then let’s have a freaking war. Put up or shut up. And, the folks who really want a war can expect, and will receive, return fire.
Short of that, it’s time for the Kory Watkins’ of the world to put their toys away and STFU.
They are childish @ssholes, as are the the folks who pander to them for their own gain and advantage.
That’s my point of view on the whole thing.
There is no conversation to be had with people whose approach to “dialog” is “do what I say or I’ll kill you”. There is nothing to discuss with them, there is nothing about them or their point of view that I have any interest in understanding.
When the guns come out, the conversation is over.
The Count did not actually “call for” killing people, but let that pass.
Fair enough.
I’m just trying to keep ObWi a place where everybody feels comfortable hanging out.
But these, what are they, they call themselves conservatives, who are ascendant, are insane.
Yes, I agree with this.
To me, personally, when the conversation devolves to threats of violence and mayhem, then the conversation is over.
If your response to the political process yielding results that you don’t like is to start waving your guns around, then we have a problem for which the political process is no longer a remedy.
If folks really want a war, then let’s have a freaking war. Put up or shut up. And, the folks who really want a war can expect, and will receive, return fire.
Short of that, it’s time for the Kory Watkins’ of the world to put their toys away and STFU.
They are childish @ssholes, as are the the folks who pander to them for their own gain and advantage.
That’s my point of view on the whole thing.
There is no conversation to be had with people whose approach to “dialog” is “do what I say or I’ll kill you”. There is nothing to discuss with them, there is nothing about them or their point of view that I have any interest in understanding.
When the guns come out, the conversation is over.
The Count did not actually “call for” killing people, but let that pass.
Fair enough.
I’m just trying to keep ObWi a place where everybody feels comfortable hanging out.
But these, what are they, they call themselves conservatives, who are ascendant, are insane.
Yes, I agree with this.
To me, personally, when the conversation devolves to threats of violence and mayhem, then the conversation is over.
If your response to the political process yielding results that you don’t like is to start waving your guns around, then we have a problem for which the political process is no longer a remedy.
If folks really want a war, then let’s have a freaking war. Put up or shut up. And, the folks who really want a war can expect, and will receive, return fire.
Short of that, it’s time for the Kory Watkins’ of the world to put their toys away and STFU.
They are childish @ssholes, as are the the folks who pander to them for their own gain and advantage.
That’s my point of view on the whole thing.
There is no conversation to be had with people whose approach to “dialog” is “do what I say or I’ll kill you”. There is nothing to discuss with them, there is nothing about them or their point of view that I have any interest in understanding.
When the guns come out, the conversation is over.
What Russell said.
What Russell said.
What Russell said.
Especially this:
“If your response to the political process yielding results that you don’t like is to start waving your guns around, then we have a problem for which the political process is no longer a remedy.”
I tried, but failed, to find a video I saw years ago of a two-man panel of Grover Norquist and Tucker Carlson vetting some Republican candidates under bad lighting for the House and nearly the entire thing was taken up by Norquist getting the assembled idiots to prove their gun bonafides, which each of them fell over themselves doing, even the lone woman on the panel who was so eager that she said she owned TWO AR-15s, and a cabinet full of other weapons.
I think one guy shrugged and said he might own a pistol but wasn’t sure where it was. He was never heard from again. Any conversation directed his way was over.
The underlying theme of the questioning directed by Norquist (with his bow-tied simp sidekick Carlson giggling like a smitten schoolgirl, not that there’s anything wrong with smitten schoolgirls) was NOT self-defense, but readiness for action against the political process not yielding their desired results.
The irony that they want to arm the rest of us too and THEN be IN the government they hate seemed to have escaped them, but such is the fall of civilization in the deadly hands of nincompoops.
About the same time, I saw Norquist interviewed on C-Span regarding some feature of Federal Agricultural policy stop conversation completely by saying IF things did not go his way, well then, we have five million heavily armed ranchers and farmers out there to do the talking.
Do we now? Tell that to the Transcanada Pipeline Company, but of course conservatives are happy to use government force and violence on behalf of their monied constituents, corporations.
Now look, I’m pretty sure Norquist carries. How heated can discourse become when one of the debaters is an armed as*hole? Not very, because there is the implicit statement that the armed one may have to shoot you if you cross a line they don’t divulge upfront.
Like money being declared speech, a gun in the public square is an explicit threat that conversation stops when the armed ones, or the rich ones, say it does.
If a guy, a stranger to me, is walking down the sidewalk toward me with a pistol strapped to his belt, my behavior changes. I don’t sus his intentions, I don’t know who he is, though I’d probably recognize George Zimmerman. Do I have to use an effing panic button. Do I have to cross the street to indulge his implicit threat? Do I need to stow the Skittles and be ready for something? What, I can’t shoot him a dirty look now, like Wyatt Earp might, which is a normal everyday bit of free speech discourse, because I need to worry that the poor sensitive armed f&ck might shoot me.
I’m not living like that.
I’m a whackjob, no doubt, for the purposes of the internet, but the pressure to arm society beyond all common sense, especially in public venues, by the NRA and their Republican associates is in fact a highly intentional and organized effort to stop conversation on public policy in its tracks.
We’re there now.
Especially this:
“If your response to the political process yielding results that you don’t like is to start waving your guns around, then we have a problem for which the political process is no longer a remedy.”
I tried, but failed, to find a video I saw years ago of a two-man panel of Grover Norquist and Tucker Carlson vetting some Republican candidates under bad lighting for the House and nearly the entire thing was taken up by Norquist getting the assembled idiots to prove their gun bonafides, which each of them fell over themselves doing, even the lone woman on the panel who was so eager that she said she owned TWO AR-15s, and a cabinet full of other weapons.
I think one guy shrugged and said he might own a pistol but wasn’t sure where it was. He was never heard from again. Any conversation directed his way was over.
The underlying theme of the questioning directed by Norquist (with his bow-tied simp sidekick Carlson giggling like a smitten schoolgirl, not that there’s anything wrong with smitten schoolgirls) was NOT self-defense, but readiness for action against the political process not yielding their desired results.
The irony that they want to arm the rest of us too and THEN be IN the government they hate seemed to have escaped them, but such is the fall of civilization in the deadly hands of nincompoops.
About the same time, I saw Norquist interviewed on C-Span regarding some feature of Federal Agricultural policy stop conversation completely by saying IF things did not go his way, well then, we have five million heavily armed ranchers and farmers out there to do the talking.
Do we now? Tell that to the Transcanada Pipeline Company, but of course conservatives are happy to use government force and violence on behalf of their monied constituents, corporations.
Now look, I’m pretty sure Norquist carries. How heated can discourse become when one of the debaters is an armed as*hole? Not very, because there is the implicit statement that the armed one may have to shoot you if you cross a line they don’t divulge upfront.
Like money being declared speech, a gun in the public square is an explicit threat that conversation stops when the armed ones, or the rich ones, say it does.
If a guy, a stranger to me, is walking down the sidewalk toward me with a pistol strapped to his belt, my behavior changes. I don’t sus his intentions, I don’t know who he is, though I’d probably recognize George Zimmerman. Do I have to use an effing panic button. Do I have to cross the street to indulge his implicit threat? Do I need to stow the Skittles and be ready for something? What, I can’t shoot him a dirty look now, like Wyatt Earp might, which is a normal everyday bit of free speech discourse, because I need to worry that the poor sensitive armed f&ck might shoot me.
I’m not living like that.
I’m a whackjob, no doubt, for the purposes of the internet, but the pressure to arm society beyond all common sense, especially in public venues, by the NRA and their Republican associates is in fact a highly intentional and organized effort to stop conversation on public policy in its tracks.
We’re there now.
Especially this:
“If your response to the political process yielding results that you don’t like is to start waving your guns around, then we have a problem for which the political process is no longer a remedy.”
I tried, but failed, to find a video I saw years ago of a two-man panel of Grover Norquist and Tucker Carlson vetting some Republican candidates under bad lighting for the House and nearly the entire thing was taken up by Norquist getting the assembled idiots to prove their gun bonafides, which each of them fell over themselves doing, even the lone woman on the panel who was so eager that she said she owned TWO AR-15s, and a cabinet full of other weapons.
I think one guy shrugged and said he might own a pistol but wasn’t sure where it was. He was never heard from again. Any conversation directed his way was over.
The underlying theme of the questioning directed by Norquist (with his bow-tied simp sidekick Carlson giggling like a smitten schoolgirl, not that there’s anything wrong with smitten schoolgirls) was NOT self-defense, but readiness for action against the political process not yielding their desired results.
The irony that they want to arm the rest of us too and THEN be IN the government they hate seemed to have escaped them, but such is the fall of civilization in the deadly hands of nincompoops.
About the same time, I saw Norquist interviewed on C-Span regarding some feature of Federal Agricultural policy stop conversation completely by saying IF things did not go his way, well then, we have five million heavily armed ranchers and farmers out there to do the talking.
Do we now? Tell that to the Transcanada Pipeline Company, but of course conservatives are happy to use government force and violence on behalf of their monied constituents, corporations.
Now look, I’m pretty sure Norquist carries. How heated can discourse become when one of the debaters is an armed as*hole? Not very, because there is the implicit statement that the armed one may have to shoot you if you cross a line they don’t divulge upfront.
Like money being declared speech, a gun in the public square is an explicit threat that conversation stops when the armed ones, or the rich ones, say it does.
If a guy, a stranger to me, is walking down the sidewalk toward me with a pistol strapped to his belt, my behavior changes. I don’t sus his intentions, I don’t know who he is, though I’d probably recognize George Zimmerman. Do I have to use an effing panic button. Do I have to cross the street to indulge his implicit threat? Do I need to stow the Skittles and be ready for something? What, I can’t shoot him a dirty look now, like Wyatt Earp might, which is a normal everyday bit of free speech discourse, because I need to worry that the poor sensitive armed f&ck might shoot me.
I’m not living like that.
I’m a whackjob, no doubt, for the purposes of the internet, but the pressure to arm society beyond all common sense, especially in public venues, by the NRA and their Republican associates is in fact a highly intentional and organized effort to stop conversation on public policy in its tracks.
We’re there now.
LJ kindly unbanned me, as he doubted he’d be available on the 8th. I’ll try not to abuse that.
“To me, personally, when the conversation devolves to threats of violence and mayhem, then the conversation is over.”
Then it seems to me that political conversations must start out over. Political discussions are, ultimately, (And pretty directly in this specific case.) about what the law shall be. Which is to say, when the government shall invoke threats of violence and mayhem.
Literally, you’re discussing under what circumstances the government will threaten to shoot people, and you think threats have no place in such a discussion? “Gentlemen! You can’t fight in here, this is the War Room!”
Advocating a law is threatening people with violence.
LJ kindly unbanned me, as he doubted he’d be available on the 8th. I’ll try not to abuse that.
“To me, personally, when the conversation devolves to threats of violence and mayhem, then the conversation is over.”
Then it seems to me that political conversations must start out over. Political discussions are, ultimately, (And pretty directly in this specific case.) about what the law shall be. Which is to say, when the government shall invoke threats of violence and mayhem.
Literally, you’re discussing under what circumstances the government will threaten to shoot people, and you think threats have no place in such a discussion? “Gentlemen! You can’t fight in here, this is the War Room!”
Advocating a law is threatening people with violence.
LJ kindly unbanned me, as he doubted he’d be available on the 8th. I’ll try not to abuse that.
“To me, personally, when the conversation devolves to threats of violence and mayhem, then the conversation is over.”
Then it seems to me that political conversations must start out over. Political discussions are, ultimately, (And pretty directly in this specific case.) about what the law shall be. Which is to say, when the government shall invoke threats of violence and mayhem.
Literally, you’re discussing under what circumstances the government will threaten to shoot people, and you think threats have no place in such a discussion? “Gentlemen! You can’t fight in here, this is the War Room!”
Advocating a law is threatening people with violence.
Which is not to say that the dude who stuck his foot in the door shouldn’t have been in a world of legal trouble. This was just a general comment about the idea that threats have no place in political discussions.
Which is not to say that the dude who stuck his foot in the door shouldn’t have been in a world of legal trouble. This was just a general comment about the idea that threats have no place in political discussions.
Which is not to say that the dude who stuck his foot in the door shouldn’t have been in a world of legal trouble. This was just a general comment about the idea that threats have no place in political discussions.
I’m not sure if there’s any value in pursuing this, but I’ll give it a try.
If I don’t stop for a stop sign, I will pay a fine.
Watkins’ rep voted against open carry, and Watkins wants him hung.
I see a distinction there. Perhaps you don’t.
In any case, whatever. I don’t live in TX, so as a practical matter it’s not my problem.
Dudes like Watkins don’t get much traction where I live, and I assure you I will do whatever I am able to do to keep it that way.
To each his own. If Watkins’ approach suits you, fine with me, just keep it there where you live and stay the hell out of my state.
Thanks.
I’m not sure if there’s any value in pursuing this, but I’ll give it a try.
If I don’t stop for a stop sign, I will pay a fine.
Watkins’ rep voted against open carry, and Watkins wants him hung.
I see a distinction there. Perhaps you don’t.
In any case, whatever. I don’t live in TX, so as a practical matter it’s not my problem.
Dudes like Watkins don’t get much traction where I live, and I assure you I will do whatever I am able to do to keep it that way.
To each his own. If Watkins’ approach suits you, fine with me, just keep it there where you live and stay the hell out of my state.
Thanks.
I’m not sure if there’s any value in pursuing this, but I’ll give it a try.
If I don’t stop for a stop sign, I will pay a fine.
Watkins’ rep voted against open carry, and Watkins wants him hung.
I see a distinction there. Perhaps you don’t.
In any case, whatever. I don’t live in TX, so as a practical matter it’s not my problem.
Dudes like Watkins don’t get much traction where I live, and I assure you I will do whatever I am able to do to keep it that way.
To each his own. If Watkins’ approach suits you, fine with me, just keep it there where you live and stay the hell out of my state.
Thanks.
Welcome back, Brett.
“Advocating a law is threatening people with violence.”
Kory Watkins and the Governor of Texas prove your point in the most literal terms by advocating for open carry, making it a law, and then for good measure, threatening to kill those who advocated against making it a law.
Now, I’m done (for now) because I find this dead end of absolute logic to be dimly lit and poorly ventilated.
I’m claustrophobic.
Welcome back, Brett.
“Advocating a law is threatening people with violence.”
Kory Watkins and the Governor of Texas prove your point in the most literal terms by advocating for open carry, making it a law, and then for good measure, threatening to kill those who advocated against making it a law.
Now, I’m done (for now) because I find this dead end of absolute logic to be dimly lit and poorly ventilated.
I’m claustrophobic.
Welcome back, Brett.
“Advocating a law is threatening people with violence.”
Kory Watkins and the Governor of Texas prove your point in the most literal terms by advocating for open carry, making it a law, and then for good measure, threatening to kill those who advocated against making it a law.
Now, I’m done (for now) because I find this dead end of absolute logic to be dimly lit and poorly ventilated.
I’m claustrophobic.
Hey, a link to Juanita Jean:
http://juanitajean.com/annie-get-your-gun/
I haven’t heard yet if the Governor of Texas has penned a concern trolling letter to legislators and their families in Texas who Kory Watkins threatened to murder.
Probably ran out of stationary keeping tabs on Jade Helm.
I understand. Watkins isn’t a scary black President.
Have a great weekend.
Hey, a link to Juanita Jean:
http://juanitajean.com/annie-get-your-gun/
I haven’t heard yet if the Governor of Texas has penned a concern trolling letter to legislators and their families in Texas who Kory Watkins threatened to murder.
Probably ran out of stationary keeping tabs on Jade Helm.
I understand. Watkins isn’t a scary black President.
Have a great weekend.
Hey, a link to Juanita Jean:
http://juanitajean.com/annie-get-your-gun/
I haven’t heard yet if the Governor of Texas has penned a concern trolling letter to legislators and their families in Texas who Kory Watkins threatened to murder.
Probably ran out of stationary keeping tabs on Jade Helm.
I understand. Watkins isn’t a scary black President.
Have a great weekend.
Welcome back, Brett.
Welcome back, Brett.
Welcome back, Brett.
Welcome back, Brett.
Literally, you’re discussing under what circumstances the government will threaten to shoot people, and you think threats have no place in such a discussion?
This is, I think, a point of disgreement. When dealing with some, extreme, cases it may come to that. But in by far the greatest majority of cases, people believe in living together in peace to the extent that they are willing to obey even laws that they disagree with. Without any consideration that force might be applied if they don’t.
Which is to say, some people (actually most people IMHO) have higher values than the freedom to refuse to do things. So they don’t need to be threatened in order to get them to follow the law. It definitely appears that libertarians are not among them. But consider that libertarians, specifically those who are not just mildly libertarian, are a rather small subset of the population, and look at the rest of us.
Welcome back, Brett.
Literally, you’re discussing under what circumstances the government will threaten to shoot people, and you think threats have no place in such a discussion?
This is, I think, a point of disgreement. When dealing with some, extreme, cases it may come to that. But in by far the greatest majority of cases, people believe in living together in peace to the extent that they are willing to obey even laws that they disagree with. Without any consideration that force might be applied if they don’t.
Which is to say, some people (actually most people IMHO) have higher values than the freedom to refuse to do things. So they don’t need to be threatened in order to get them to follow the law. It definitely appears that libertarians are not among them. But consider that libertarians, specifically those who are not just mildly libertarian, are a rather small subset of the population, and look at the rest of us.
Welcome back, Brett.
Literally, you’re discussing under what circumstances the government will threaten to shoot people, and you think threats have no place in such a discussion?
This is, I think, a point of disgreement. When dealing with some, extreme, cases it may come to that. But in by far the greatest majority of cases, people believe in living together in peace to the extent that they are willing to obey even laws that they disagree with. Without any consideration that force might be applied if they don’t.
Which is to say, some people (actually most people IMHO) have higher values than the freedom to refuse to do things. So they don’t need to be threatened in order to get them to follow the law. It definitely appears that libertarians are not among them. But consider that libertarians, specifically those who are not just mildly libertarian, are a rather small subset of the population, and look at the rest of us.
The rule of law itself is a death warrant.
The rule of law itself is a death warrant.
The rule of law itself is a death warrant.
“Watkins’ rep voted against open carry, and Watkins wants him hung.”
Watkin’s rep wants Watkin jailed if he peacefully walks down a street with a gun in plain view. So I see a certain symmetry there. They’re both leveling threats, the difference is, one wants to be left alone, and the other wants people punished if they don’t do as they’re told.
So there’s a bit of asymmetry there, and it doesn’t cut against Watkin.
Still, it is perfectly possible to be a moron and an *sshole in the defense of a just cause, and that DOES cut against Watkin. He might be on the side of all that’s good and right, but he’s a jerk on that side.
“Watkins’ rep voted against open carry, and Watkins wants him hung.”
Watkin’s rep wants Watkin jailed if he peacefully walks down a street with a gun in plain view. So I see a certain symmetry there. They’re both leveling threats, the difference is, one wants to be left alone, and the other wants people punished if they don’t do as they’re told.
So there’s a bit of asymmetry there, and it doesn’t cut against Watkin.
Still, it is perfectly possible to be a moron and an *sshole in the defense of a just cause, and that DOES cut against Watkin. He might be on the side of all that’s good and right, but he’s a jerk on that side.
“Watkins’ rep voted against open carry, and Watkins wants him hung.”
Watkin’s rep wants Watkin jailed if he peacefully walks down a street with a gun in plain view. So I see a certain symmetry there. They’re both leveling threats, the difference is, one wants to be left alone, and the other wants people punished if they don’t do as they’re told.
So there’s a bit of asymmetry there, and it doesn’t cut against Watkin.
Still, it is perfectly possible to be a moron and an *sshole in the defense of a just cause, and that DOES cut against Watkin. He might be on the side of all that’s good and right, but he’s a jerk on that side.
“Which is to say, some people (actually most people IMHO) have higher values than the freedom to refuse to do things. So they don’t need to be threatened in order to get them to follow the law.”
This is in large measure because a lot of laws are quite reasonable, and the cost of violating even the unreasonable ones has been set quite high. Nobody wants to oppose the government over minor matters.
But we are still discussing violence when we discuss laws, even if the club is hidden behind the back most of the time.
I’m guessing it could be hidden even more of the time, if the violent nature of law were taken more into consideration when they were made, and so fewer laws were made in the first place, and not for such light reasons.
“Which is to say, some people (actually most people IMHO) have higher values than the freedom to refuse to do things. So they don’t need to be threatened in order to get them to follow the law.”
This is in large measure because a lot of laws are quite reasonable, and the cost of violating even the unreasonable ones has been set quite high. Nobody wants to oppose the government over minor matters.
But we are still discussing violence when we discuss laws, even if the club is hidden behind the back most of the time.
I’m guessing it could be hidden even more of the time, if the violent nature of law were taken more into consideration when they were made, and so fewer laws were made in the first place, and not for such light reasons.
“Which is to say, some people (actually most people IMHO) have higher values than the freedom to refuse to do things. So they don’t need to be threatened in order to get them to follow the law.”
This is in large measure because a lot of laws are quite reasonable, and the cost of violating even the unreasonable ones has been set quite high. Nobody wants to oppose the government over minor matters.
But we are still discussing violence when we discuss laws, even if the club is hidden behind the back most of the time.
I’m guessing it could be hidden even more of the time, if the violent nature of law were taken more into consideration when they were made, and so fewer laws were made in the first place, and not for such light reasons.
the difference is, one wants to be left alone, and the other wants people punished if they don’t do as they’re told.
some people see the roles reversed from how you see them.
some people see a guy with an openly-carried pistol as a threat and would feel coerced during any interaction with a person with a pistol. some would be very reluctant to speak his mind to or vocally disagree with someone with a gun. to such a person, being “left alone” is not having to deal with people who proudly bring deadly weapons to every interaction.
the difference is, one wants to be left alone, and the other wants people punished if they don’t do as they’re told.
some people see the roles reversed from how you see them.
some people see a guy with an openly-carried pistol as a threat and would feel coerced during any interaction with a person with a pistol. some would be very reluctant to speak his mind to or vocally disagree with someone with a gun. to such a person, being “left alone” is not having to deal with people who proudly bring deadly weapons to every interaction.
the difference is, one wants to be left alone, and the other wants people punished if they don’t do as they’re told.
some people see the roles reversed from how you see them.
some people see a guy with an openly-carried pistol as a threat and would feel coerced during any interaction with a person with a pistol. some would be very reluctant to speak his mind to or vocally disagree with someone with a gun. to such a person, being “left alone” is not having to deal with people who proudly bring deadly weapons to every interaction.
Watkin’s rep wants Watkin jailed if he peacefully walks down a street with a gun in plain view.
and so we come to the heart of the error.
if Watkin’s rep doesn’t want open carry, it’s highly likely because a significant number of the folks who live where Watkin lives don’t want it either.
otherwise, Watkin’s rep’s tenure as such will be fairly short. and not because anybody hung him, but because they will vote him out.
it ain’t what Watkins wants vs what The Government wants, it’s what Watkins wants vs what some signficant number of people who live where Watkins lives want.
apparently, a significant number of people who live where Watkins lives don’t want him walking around openly carrying a weapon.
that creates a conflict. some folks who live there want open carry, some don’t.
we can either sort stuff like that out via a political process, or we can kill each other and the last man standing wins.
Watkins apparently finds the latter both appealing and justifiable.
That makes him, not an @sshole, but a disruptive threat to public order and representative governance.
It makes him an insurrectionist.
Watkin’s rep wants Watkin jailed if he peacefully walks down a street with a gun in plain view.
and so we come to the heart of the error.
if Watkin’s rep doesn’t want open carry, it’s highly likely because a significant number of the folks who live where Watkin lives don’t want it either.
otherwise, Watkin’s rep’s tenure as such will be fairly short. and not because anybody hung him, but because they will vote him out.
it ain’t what Watkins wants vs what The Government wants, it’s what Watkins wants vs what some signficant number of people who live where Watkins lives want.
apparently, a significant number of people who live where Watkins lives don’t want him walking around openly carrying a weapon.
that creates a conflict. some folks who live there want open carry, some don’t.
we can either sort stuff like that out via a political process, or we can kill each other and the last man standing wins.
Watkins apparently finds the latter both appealing and justifiable.
That makes him, not an @sshole, but a disruptive threat to public order and representative governance.
It makes him an insurrectionist.
Watkin’s rep wants Watkin jailed if he peacefully walks down a street with a gun in plain view.
and so we come to the heart of the error.
if Watkin’s rep doesn’t want open carry, it’s highly likely because a significant number of the folks who live where Watkin lives don’t want it either.
otherwise, Watkin’s rep’s tenure as such will be fairly short. and not because anybody hung him, but because they will vote him out.
it ain’t what Watkins wants vs what The Government wants, it’s what Watkins wants vs what some signficant number of people who live where Watkins lives want.
apparently, a significant number of people who live where Watkins lives don’t want him walking around openly carrying a weapon.
that creates a conflict. some folks who live there want open carry, some don’t.
we can either sort stuff like that out via a political process, or we can kill each other and the last man standing wins.
Watkins apparently finds the latter both appealing and justifiable.
That makes him, not an @sshole, but a disruptive threat to public order and representative governance.
It makes him an insurrectionist.
we can kill each other and the last man standing wins.
Watkins apparently finds the latter both appealing and justifiable.
That makes him, not an @sshole, but a disruptive threat to public order and representative governance.
It makes him an insurrectionist.
So, just a quick observation, bearing in mind I know jack all about Watkins other than what was in the TPM link of Counts.
He sounds like a disruptive jerk, and I think he does little to help his cause or civil discourse in general.
And there were several other links, so maybe I missed something, but what he said in the TPM link was:
They should be arrested, charged with treason and should face a punishment that could result in being hung from the tree of liberty.
I disagree with Watkins in that passing the law was treasonous, but calling for someone to be arrested, charged, and punished is hardly a call to a ‘last man standing wins’ type situation.
And its definitely not insurrection.
I’ve seen similar things said about Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, Manning. I’ve seen house R’s accused of treason. In none of those situations would I consider it anything more than overheated rhetoric.
Ridiculous? Yes. Disruptive to actual debate? Sure. Generally a bad move? Yep. Insurrection? No.
That being said, I might have missed some stronger, more direct language. From what little I know of Watkins, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear it.
we can kill each other and the last man standing wins.
Watkins apparently finds the latter both appealing and justifiable.
That makes him, not an @sshole, but a disruptive threat to public order and representative governance.
It makes him an insurrectionist.
So, just a quick observation, bearing in mind I know jack all about Watkins other than what was in the TPM link of Counts.
He sounds like a disruptive jerk, and I think he does little to help his cause or civil discourse in general.
And there were several other links, so maybe I missed something, but what he said in the TPM link was:
They should be arrested, charged with treason and should face a punishment that could result in being hung from the tree of liberty.
I disagree with Watkins in that passing the law was treasonous, but calling for someone to be arrested, charged, and punished is hardly a call to a ‘last man standing wins’ type situation.
And its definitely not insurrection.
I’ve seen similar things said about Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, Manning. I’ve seen house R’s accused of treason. In none of those situations would I consider it anything more than overheated rhetoric.
Ridiculous? Yes. Disruptive to actual debate? Sure. Generally a bad move? Yep. Insurrection? No.
That being said, I might have missed some stronger, more direct language. From what little I know of Watkins, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear it.
we can kill each other and the last man standing wins.
Watkins apparently finds the latter both appealing and justifiable.
That makes him, not an @sshole, but a disruptive threat to public order and representative governance.
It makes him an insurrectionist.
So, just a quick observation, bearing in mind I know jack all about Watkins other than what was in the TPM link of Counts.
He sounds like a disruptive jerk, and I think he does little to help his cause or civil discourse in general.
And there were several other links, so maybe I missed something, but what he said in the TPM link was:
They should be arrested, charged with treason and should face a punishment that could result in being hung from the tree of liberty.
I disagree with Watkins in that passing the law was treasonous, but calling for someone to be arrested, charged, and punished is hardly a call to a ‘last man standing wins’ type situation.
And its definitely not insurrection.
I’ve seen similar things said about Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, Manning. I’ve seen house R’s accused of treason. In none of those situations would I consider it anything more than overheated rhetoric.
Ridiculous? Yes. Disruptive to actual debate? Sure. Generally a bad move? Yep. Insurrection? No.
That being said, I might have missed some stronger, more direct language. From what little I know of Watkins, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear it.
Check out the video of Watkins & co’s visit to the rep’s office.
Check out the video of Watkins & co’s visit to the rep’s office.
Check out the video of Watkins & co’s visit to the rep’s office.
Or, from the Juanita Jean link, this, from our pal Watkins:
Or, pick any random jamoke running off their mouths about “2nd Amendment remedies”.
What they are saying is that if they do not prevail through the normal political process, they will take up arms.
You tell me what to call that.
Or, from the Juanita Jean link, this, from our pal Watkins:
Or, pick any random jamoke running off their mouths about “2nd Amendment remedies”.
What they are saying is that if they do not prevail through the normal political process, they will take up arms.
You tell me what to call that.
Or, from the Juanita Jean link, this, from our pal Watkins:
Or, pick any random jamoke running off their mouths about “2nd Amendment remedies”.
What they are saying is that if they do not prevail through the normal political process, they will take up arms.
You tell me what to call that.
Well, it isn’t actually insurrection yet. Just a threat of insurrection….
Well, it isn’t actually insurrection yet. Just a threat of insurrection….
Well, it isn’t actually insurrection yet. Just a threat of insurrection….
I’d call that insurrection, and insurrection is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. Often justified, I would say, but rarely prudent. Kind of like the 98 lb weakling might be justified in not giving the football quarterback his lunch money, but should probably hand it over anyway, the government has individuals outmatched, making even justified revolt not a smart move.
But people who are willing to go as far as insurrection should be clear about it. You know, so that people who aren’t willing to go as far as provoking insurrection don’t do so by accident?
Kind of like the doomsday weapon in Dr. Strangelove, the whole point of drawing a line in the sand is lost, if you don’t do so where people can see it.
Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected. That’s a pretty strong basis for demanding your rights not be overridden. It’s a pretty strong basis even if it happens to be an explicit constitutional right some people don’t like.
I’d call that insurrection, and insurrection is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. Often justified, I would say, but rarely prudent. Kind of like the 98 lb weakling might be justified in not giving the football quarterback his lunch money, but should probably hand it over anyway, the government has individuals outmatched, making even justified revolt not a smart move.
But people who are willing to go as far as insurrection should be clear about it. You know, so that people who aren’t willing to go as far as provoking insurrection don’t do so by accident?
Kind of like the doomsday weapon in Dr. Strangelove, the whole point of drawing a line in the sand is lost, if you don’t do so where people can see it.
Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected. That’s a pretty strong basis for demanding your rights not be overridden. It’s a pretty strong basis even if it happens to be an explicit constitutional right some people don’t like.
I’d call that insurrection, and insurrection is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. Often justified, I would say, but rarely prudent. Kind of like the 98 lb weakling might be justified in not giving the football quarterback his lunch money, but should probably hand it over anyway, the government has individuals outmatched, making even justified revolt not a smart move.
But people who are willing to go as far as insurrection should be clear about it. You know, so that people who aren’t willing to go as far as provoking insurrection don’t do so by accident?
Kind of like the doomsday weapon in Dr. Strangelove, the whole point of drawing a line in the sand is lost, if you don’t do so where people can see it.
Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected. That’s a pretty strong basis for demanding your rights not be overridden. It’s a pretty strong basis even if it happens to be an explicit constitutional right some people don’t like.
the Constitution is not explicit about carrying handguns in public.
the Constitution is not explicit about carrying handguns in public.
the Constitution is not explicit about carrying handguns in public.
To the extent that government and law represent a threat of violence, that threat is miniscule in comparison to the threat of violence that exists without them.
“…people in suits who think that they can take away freedoms in the name of safety”
Man, I hate suits, too. That aside, taking away “freedoms” in the name of safety pretty much sums up what the law is about.
This idiotic notion that we’re all safer if we’re all armed, which I assume follows from the idea that if one person is armed, he is safer – a proposition that, itself, may or may not be true, but let’s assume it is – represents a fallacy of composition, similar to the idea that because one person who stands up at a concert gets a better view, it follows that everyone will get a better view by standing. The difference is, people tend to understand that once everyone stands up, the view isn’t any better.
(I’d like to head off all the silly extensions of that limited analogy, which is only intended to demonstrate a basic concept rather than parallel in every way people openly carrying pistols in public, if that’s at all possible.)
To the extent that government and law represent a threat of violence, that threat is miniscule in comparison to the threat of violence that exists without them.
“…people in suits who think that they can take away freedoms in the name of safety”
Man, I hate suits, too. That aside, taking away “freedoms” in the name of safety pretty much sums up what the law is about.
This idiotic notion that we’re all safer if we’re all armed, which I assume follows from the idea that if one person is armed, he is safer – a proposition that, itself, may or may not be true, but let’s assume it is – represents a fallacy of composition, similar to the idea that because one person who stands up at a concert gets a better view, it follows that everyone will get a better view by standing. The difference is, people tend to understand that once everyone stands up, the view isn’t any better.
(I’d like to head off all the silly extensions of that limited analogy, which is only intended to demonstrate a basic concept rather than parallel in every way people openly carrying pistols in public, if that’s at all possible.)
To the extent that government and law represent a threat of violence, that threat is miniscule in comparison to the threat of violence that exists without them.
“…people in suits who think that they can take away freedoms in the name of safety”
Man, I hate suits, too. That aside, taking away “freedoms” in the name of safety pretty much sums up what the law is about.
This idiotic notion that we’re all safer if we’re all armed, which I assume follows from the idea that if one person is armed, he is safer – a proposition that, itself, may or may not be true, but let’s assume it is – represents a fallacy of composition, similar to the idea that because one person who stands up at a concert gets a better view, it follows that everyone will get a better view by standing. The difference is, people tend to understand that once everyone stands up, the view isn’t any better.
(I’d like to head off all the silly extensions of that limited analogy, which is only intended to demonstrate a basic concept rather than parallel in every way people openly carrying pistols in public, if that’s at all possible.)
Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected
No, he is not.
Nice try.
Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected
No, he is not.
Nice try.
Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected
No, he is not.
Nice try.
Check out the video of Watkins & co’s visit to the rep’s office.
I did. Linked here, if anyone is interested:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-guns-poncho-nevarez-panic-buttons
And again, the guy is an disruptive blowhard. But that’s not insurrection. The JJ link refers to this video:
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Open-carry-video-seen-as-threat-to-lawmakers-6061969.php
Which, again, is a lot of BS, but I strain to see it as insurrection, or a threat of insurrection, or a call to insurrection.
He’s a clown. Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t.
Check out the video of Watkins & co’s visit to the rep’s office.
I did. Linked here, if anyone is interested:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-guns-poncho-nevarez-panic-buttons
And again, the guy is an disruptive blowhard. But that’s not insurrection. The JJ link refers to this video:
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Open-carry-video-seen-as-threat-to-lawmakers-6061969.php
Which, again, is a lot of BS, but I strain to see it as insurrection, or a threat of insurrection, or a call to insurrection.
He’s a clown. Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t.
Check out the video of Watkins & co’s visit to the rep’s office.
I did. Linked here, if anyone is interested:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-guns-poncho-nevarez-panic-buttons
And again, the guy is an disruptive blowhard. But that’s not insurrection. The JJ link refers to this video:
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Open-carry-video-seen-as-threat-to-lawmakers-6061969.php
Which, again, is a lot of BS, but I strain to see it as insurrection, or a threat of insurrection, or a call to insurrection.
He’s a clown. Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t.
He’s a clown.
Agreed.
Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t.
I’m just taking the man at his word.
Tell me why I shouldn’t.
He’s a clown.
Agreed.
Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t.
I’m just taking the man at his word.
Tell me why I shouldn’t.
He’s a clown.
Agreed.
Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t.
I’m just taking the man at his word.
Tell me why I shouldn’t.
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection? Ten people? Ten percent of the population?
In short, how many people do you need to have involved to make the jump from mere nasty violence (whatever the motivation) to an actual insurrection?
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection? Ten people? Ten percent of the population?
In short, how many people do you need to have involved to make the jump from mere nasty violence (whatever the motivation) to an actual insurrection?
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection? Ten people? Ten percent of the population?
In short, how many people do you need to have involved to make the jump from mere nasty violence (whatever the motivation) to an actual insurrection?
I’m just taking the man at his word.
Tell me why I shouldn’t.
Because that type of overheated rhetoric with violent imagery is far, far more common than resulting violence.
Not to pick on Count, but accusations of treason and calls for violence and death are rife in his posts. Yet I’m fairly comfortable not calling Count a mass murderer, because I recognize that the overwrought rhetoric and violent imagery is unlikely to have any real-world correlate.
Watkins is a crank and is taking to whatever soapbox offered him to spew hyperbole. He is allowed, and doing so is not insurrection. However, nobody is obligated to listen, and I think he should be ignored.
I’m just taking the man at his word.
Tell me why I shouldn’t.
Because that type of overheated rhetoric with violent imagery is far, far more common than resulting violence.
Not to pick on Count, but accusations of treason and calls for violence and death are rife in his posts. Yet I’m fairly comfortable not calling Count a mass murderer, because I recognize that the overwrought rhetoric and violent imagery is unlikely to have any real-world correlate.
Watkins is a crank and is taking to whatever soapbox offered him to spew hyperbole. He is allowed, and doing so is not insurrection. However, nobody is obligated to listen, and I think he should be ignored.
I’m just taking the man at his word.
Tell me why I shouldn’t.
Because that type of overheated rhetoric with violent imagery is far, far more common than resulting violence.
Not to pick on Count, but accusations of treason and calls for violence and death are rife in his posts. Yet I’m fairly comfortable not calling Count a mass murderer, because I recognize that the overwrought rhetoric and violent imagery is unlikely to have any real-world correlate.
Watkins is a crank and is taking to whatever soapbox offered him to spew hyperbole. He is allowed, and doing so is not insurrection. However, nobody is obligated to listen, and I think he should be ignored.
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection?
in·sur·rec·tion
ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
I’m going to go with ‘no’. One person threatening violence is not an insurrection.
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection?
in·sur·rec·tion
ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
I’m going to go with ‘no’. One person threatening violence is not an insurrection.
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection?
in·sur·rec·tion
ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
I’m going to go with ‘no’. One person threatening violence is not an insurrection.
Well, if it’s everybody, then there’s no insurrection, if it’s nobody, there’s no insurrection. Between those limits, it’s more of a question of odds of success, not whether it’s happening.
“No, he is not.
Nice try.”
Yes, he is.
And I wouldn’t call simple denial much of a try, when the other side has actual constitutional text to point to. He wants to bear his arms. The 2nd amendment says his right to do so shall not be infringed.
You can argue that carrying concealed is enough to validate the right. He thinks not. His position is certainly not unreasonable.
Well, if it’s everybody, then there’s no insurrection, if it’s nobody, there’s no insurrection. Between those limits, it’s more of a question of odds of success, not whether it’s happening.
“No, he is not.
Nice try.”
Yes, he is.
And I wouldn’t call simple denial much of a try, when the other side has actual constitutional text to point to. He wants to bear his arms. The 2nd amendment says his right to do so shall not be infringed.
You can argue that carrying concealed is enough to validate the right. He thinks not. His position is certainly not unreasonable.
Well, if it’s everybody, then there’s no insurrection, if it’s nobody, there’s no insurrection. Between those limits, it’s more of a question of odds of success, not whether it’s happening.
“No, he is not.
Nice try.”
Yes, he is.
And I wouldn’t call simple denial much of a try, when the other side has actual constitutional text to point to. He wants to bear his arms. The 2nd amendment says his right to do so shall not be infringed.
You can argue that carrying concealed is enough to validate the right. He thinks not. His position is certainly not unreasonable.
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection?
The Murrah Building bombing in OK City was two guys.
Most likely, one of them could have done it by himself.
So, yes, one person.
Insurrection is defined by its aims, not the number of participants.
Likelihood of success is more a function of number of participants, but even a loser insurrectionist can do damage.
Because that type of overheated rhetoric with violent imagery is far, far more common than resulting violence.
How common does “resulting violence” have to get before the rest of us get to say enough is enough?
I’ve had enough. I’ve had enough of people threatening to commit violence if the normal political process doesn’t produce the result they want.
And there are enough folks running around looking for the next opportunity to water the tree of liberty with somebody else’s blood that I’m no longer content to just assume somebody’s being a stupid belligerent loudmouth.
If you say you’re gonna start shooting, I’m going to assume that you just might.
Because people do.
And the Count doesn’t even own a freaking gun, so I’m not really worried about him killing anybody.
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection?
The Murrah Building bombing in OK City was two guys.
Most likely, one of them could have done it by himself.
So, yes, one person.
Insurrection is defined by its aims, not the number of participants.
Likelihood of success is more a function of number of participants, but even a loser insurrectionist can do damage.
Because that type of overheated rhetoric with violent imagery is far, far more common than resulting violence.
How common does “resulting violence” have to get before the rest of us get to say enough is enough?
I’ve had enough. I’ve had enough of people threatening to commit violence if the normal political process doesn’t produce the result they want.
And there are enough folks running around looking for the next opportunity to water the tree of liberty with somebody else’s blood that I’m no longer content to just assume somebody’s being a stupid belligerent loudmouth.
If you say you’re gonna start shooting, I’m going to assume that you just might.
Because people do.
And the Count doesn’t even own a freaking gun, so I’m not really worried about him killing anybody.
Just out of curiosity, if one person threatens violence, is that insurrection?
The Murrah Building bombing in OK City was two guys.
Most likely, one of them could have done it by himself.
So, yes, one person.
Insurrection is defined by its aims, not the number of participants.
Likelihood of success is more a function of number of participants, but even a loser insurrectionist can do damage.
Because that type of overheated rhetoric with violent imagery is far, far more common than resulting violence.
How common does “resulting violence” have to get before the rest of us get to say enough is enough?
I’ve had enough. I’ve had enough of people threatening to commit violence if the normal political process doesn’t produce the result they want.
And there are enough folks running around looking for the next opportunity to water the tree of liberty with somebody else’s blood that I’m no longer content to just assume somebody’s being a stupid belligerent loudmouth.
If you say you’re gonna start shooting, I’m going to assume that you just might.
Because people do.
And the Count doesn’t even own a freaking gun, so I’m not really worried about him killing anybody.
His position is certainly not unreasonable.
Here is a lesson I learned fairly early in life.
There is no value in trying to have a reasonable discussion with fundamentalists. They are simply going to repeat the same mantra, over and over again, in response to any point you might make, or any question you might ask.
Hence, my simple denial in response to your earlier comment.
It wasn’t intended to be an exploration of the substance of the issue. It was intended to be a simple statement that I disagree with you.
Because anything beyond that is just going to an opportunity for your to recite your mantra, and we’ve already heard it 1,000 times.
Thanks.
His position is certainly not unreasonable.
Here is a lesson I learned fairly early in life.
There is no value in trying to have a reasonable discussion with fundamentalists. They are simply going to repeat the same mantra, over and over again, in response to any point you might make, or any question you might ask.
Hence, my simple denial in response to your earlier comment.
It wasn’t intended to be an exploration of the substance of the issue. It was intended to be a simple statement that I disagree with you.
Because anything beyond that is just going to an opportunity for your to recite your mantra, and we’ve already heard it 1,000 times.
Thanks.
His position is certainly not unreasonable.
Here is a lesson I learned fairly early in life.
There is no value in trying to have a reasonable discussion with fundamentalists. They are simply going to repeat the same mantra, over and over again, in response to any point you might make, or any question you might ask.
Hence, my simple denial in response to your earlier comment.
It wasn’t intended to be an exploration of the substance of the issue. It was intended to be a simple statement that I disagree with you.
Because anything beyond that is just going to an opportunity for your to recite your mantra, and we’ve already heard it 1,000 times.
Thanks.
I’d suggest you look around at the success of the concealed carry reform movement, and the growing success of the open carry reform movement, and ask yourself:
“Am I a fundamentalist?”
Because you look like one from my perspective.
If the streets had actually flowed with blood as your side claimed they would, when concealed carry reform spread, you might be justified in your views. But they didn’t. Over and over they didn’t.
And your side is still fighting this fight, with squat in the way of evidence that these reforms will cause any problems. You just don’t seem to care that it’s been tried in so many states and worked out fine.
Yeah, you just repeat the same mantra, over and over again.
I’d suggest you look around at the success of the concealed carry reform movement, and the growing success of the open carry reform movement, and ask yourself:
“Am I a fundamentalist?”
Because you look like one from my perspective.
If the streets had actually flowed with blood as your side claimed they would, when concealed carry reform spread, you might be justified in your views. But they didn’t. Over and over they didn’t.
And your side is still fighting this fight, with squat in the way of evidence that these reforms will cause any problems. You just don’t seem to care that it’s been tried in so many states and worked out fine.
Yeah, you just repeat the same mantra, over and over again.
I’d suggest you look around at the success of the concealed carry reform movement, and the growing success of the open carry reform movement, and ask yourself:
“Am I a fundamentalist?”
Because you look like one from my perspective.
If the streets had actually flowed with blood as your side claimed they would, when concealed carry reform spread, you might be justified in your views. But they didn’t. Over and over they didn’t.
And your side is still fighting this fight, with squat in the way of evidence that these reforms will cause any problems. You just don’t seem to care that it’s been tried in so many states and worked out fine.
Yeah, you just repeat the same mantra, over and over again.
Because you look like one from my perspective.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Show and tell time. At what point in this thread have I offered any opinion whatsoever about open carry?
If folks in TX want to allow open carry, whether licensed or not, fine with me. Not my problem. I don’t care.
I object to people threatening other people when the political process doesn’t turn out the way they like.
Because you look like one from my perspective.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Show and tell time. At what point in this thread have I offered any opinion whatsoever about open carry?
If folks in TX want to allow open carry, whether licensed or not, fine with me. Not my problem. I don’t care.
I object to people threatening other people when the political process doesn’t turn out the way they like.
Because you look like one from my perspective.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Show and tell time. At what point in this thread have I offered any opinion whatsoever about open carry?
If folks in TX want to allow open carry, whether licensed or not, fine with me. Not my problem. I don’t care.
I object to people threatening other people when the political process doesn’t turn out the way they like.
I’ve had enough of people threatening to commit violence if the normal political process doesn’t produce the result they want.
Great. What do you propose to do about it? Nothing he said is illegal, and no law making it such would pass a constitutional challenge.
I’ve suggested we ignore him and his ilk. Stop feeding the trolls, in other words.
And the Count doesn’t even own a freaking gun, so I’m not really worried about him killing anybody.
Nor am I. Then again, that was my point: rhetoric may be violent, but its not *violence*. The former may be entertaining or not, enlightening or not, disturbing or not, but is almost certainly constitutionally protected. The latter is not.
I’ve had enough of people threatening to commit violence if the normal political process doesn’t produce the result they want.
Great. What do you propose to do about it? Nothing he said is illegal, and no law making it such would pass a constitutional challenge.
I’ve suggested we ignore him and his ilk. Stop feeding the trolls, in other words.
And the Count doesn’t even own a freaking gun, so I’m not really worried about him killing anybody.
Nor am I. Then again, that was my point: rhetoric may be violent, but its not *violence*. The former may be entertaining or not, enlightening or not, disturbing or not, but is almost certainly constitutionally protected. The latter is not.
I’ve had enough of people threatening to commit violence if the normal political process doesn’t produce the result they want.
Great. What do you propose to do about it? Nothing he said is illegal, and no law making it such would pass a constitutional challenge.
I’ve suggested we ignore him and his ilk. Stop feeding the trolls, in other words.
And the Count doesn’t even own a freaking gun, so I’m not really worried about him killing anybody.
Nor am I. Then again, that was my point: rhetoric may be violent, but its not *violence*. The former may be entertaining or not, enlightening or not, disturbing or not, but is almost certainly constitutionally protected. The latter is not.
The law in question does not ban Mr.Watkins from bearing arms (which is a constitutional right) but from carrying it unconcealed (which the constitution says nothing about either in the positive or the negative).
[Cue the slippery slope argument…again]
The law in question does not ban Mr.Watkins from bearing arms (which is a constitutional right) but from carrying it unconcealed (which the constitution says nothing about either in the positive or the negative).
[Cue the slippery slope argument…again]
The law in question does not ban Mr.Watkins from bearing arms (which is a constitutional right) but from carrying it unconcealed (which the constitution says nothing about either in the positive or the negative).
[Cue the slippery slope argument…again]
“Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected
No, he is not.”
That’s an opinion about whether it’s a right, I believe.
But, you’re right, you did not express an opinion on the merits of the policy. My mistake.
Generally people don’t bother denying the existence of the right, unless they want to violate it. So I just assumed you wanted to violate it.
“Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected
No, he is not.”
That’s an opinion about whether it’s a right, I believe.
But, you’re right, you did not express an opinion on the merits of the policy. My mistake.
Generally people don’t bother denying the existence of the right, unless they want to violate it. So I just assumed you wanted to violate it.
“Watkins is demanding that an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right be respected
No, he is not.”
That’s an opinion about whether it’s a right, I believe.
But, you’re right, you did not express an opinion on the merits of the policy. My mistake.
Generally people don’t bother denying the existence of the right, unless they want to violate it. So I just assumed you wanted to violate it.
And to emphasize, I have zero objection to the Count and his style. He’s regularly interesting, entertaining, and enlightening.
He is just a ready example of the rhetorical use of violent imagery.
And to emphasize, I have zero objection to the Count and his style. He’s regularly interesting, entertaining, and enlightening.
He is just a ready example of the rhetorical use of violent imagery.
And to emphasize, I have zero objection to the Count and his style. He’s regularly interesting, entertaining, and enlightening.
He is just a ready example of the rhetorical use of violent imagery.
“Show and tell time. At what point in this thread have I offered any opinion whatsoever about open carry?”
Fair enough. As I stated in a vanished comment, you expressed a (negative) opinion about the existence of the right itself, and it has been my experience that nobody bothers to deny a right exists, if they don’t want to violate it.
But, true enough, you didn’t express an opinion about the policy. My bad.
“Show and tell time. At what point in this thread have I offered any opinion whatsoever about open carry?”
Fair enough. As I stated in a vanished comment, you expressed a (negative) opinion about the existence of the right itself, and it has been my experience that nobody bothers to deny a right exists, if they don’t want to violate it.
But, true enough, you didn’t express an opinion about the policy. My bad.
“Show and tell time. At what point in this thread have I offered any opinion whatsoever about open carry?”
Fair enough. As I stated in a vanished comment, you expressed a (negative) opinion about the existence of the right itself, and it has been my experience that nobody bothers to deny a right exists, if they don’t want to violate it.
But, true enough, you didn’t express an opinion about the policy. My bad.
rhetoric may be violent, but its not *violence*. The former may be entertaining or not, enlightening or not, disturbing or not, but is almost certainly constitutionally protected.
violent rhetoric is protected. but threats are not.
and it’s pretty easy to cross from the former to the latter.
rhetoric may be violent, but its not *violence*. The former may be entertaining or not, enlightening or not, disturbing or not, but is almost certainly constitutionally protected.
violent rhetoric is protected. but threats are not.
and it’s pretty easy to cross from the former to the latter.
rhetoric may be violent, but its not *violence*. The former may be entertaining or not, enlightening or not, disturbing or not, but is almost certainly constitutionally protected.
violent rhetoric is protected. but threats are not.
and it’s pretty easy to cross from the former to the latter.
Great. What do you propose to do about it?
I think it would be great if, for example, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas would decline to meet with people who threaten violence against legislators, or who call for their arrest and possible execution, as a response to their votes on legislation brought before them.
He might instead meet with any of the thousands of other advocates of open carry in TX who are not belligerent trash-talking loudmouth jerks. Many of those folks, in fact, have been quite vocal about their wish that Mr. Watkins would go back to Florida and stay the hell out of the situation in TX.
It would be really useful if folks like, for example, the TX Lt Governor would make the point that the political process is open to persuasion, but not threats.
As I stated in a vanished comment, you expressed a (negative) opinion about the existence of the right itself
You read me right on that point, I do not see an inalienable right to carry an unconcealed weapon on your person in the language of the 2nd A.
Nor do I see any language prohibiting that.
To my eye, the 2nd A is silent about the visibility of firearms when carried.
it has been my experience that nobody bothers to deny a right exists, if they don’t want to violate it.
Your experience appears to be limited in some important ways.
Great. What do you propose to do about it?
I think it would be great if, for example, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas would decline to meet with people who threaten violence against legislators, or who call for their arrest and possible execution, as a response to their votes on legislation brought before them.
He might instead meet with any of the thousands of other advocates of open carry in TX who are not belligerent trash-talking loudmouth jerks. Many of those folks, in fact, have been quite vocal about their wish that Mr. Watkins would go back to Florida and stay the hell out of the situation in TX.
It would be really useful if folks like, for example, the TX Lt Governor would make the point that the political process is open to persuasion, but not threats.
As I stated in a vanished comment, you expressed a (negative) opinion about the existence of the right itself
You read me right on that point, I do not see an inalienable right to carry an unconcealed weapon on your person in the language of the 2nd A.
Nor do I see any language prohibiting that.
To my eye, the 2nd A is silent about the visibility of firearms when carried.
it has been my experience that nobody bothers to deny a right exists, if they don’t want to violate it.
Your experience appears to be limited in some important ways.
Great. What do you propose to do about it?
I think it would be great if, for example, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas would decline to meet with people who threaten violence against legislators, or who call for their arrest and possible execution, as a response to their votes on legislation brought before them.
He might instead meet with any of the thousands of other advocates of open carry in TX who are not belligerent trash-talking loudmouth jerks. Many of those folks, in fact, have been quite vocal about their wish that Mr. Watkins would go back to Florida and stay the hell out of the situation in TX.
It would be really useful if folks like, for example, the TX Lt Governor would make the point that the political process is open to persuasion, but not threats.
As I stated in a vanished comment, you expressed a (negative) opinion about the existence of the right itself
You read me right on that point, I do not see an inalienable right to carry an unconcealed weapon on your person in the language of the 2nd A.
Nor do I see any language prohibiting that.
To my eye, the 2nd A is silent about the visibility of firearms when carried.
it has been my experience that nobody bothers to deny a right exists, if they don’t want to violate it.
Your experience appears to be limited in some important ways.
thompson: Nothing he said is illegal, and no law making it such would pass a constitutional challenge.
Actually, if you threaten to use a weapon on someone, that is assault (at least if he is afraid you might actually do so) and is illegal. Indeed, if you threaten any kind of “unwanteded bodily touching” (whether a weapon is involved or not), that is assault. And nobody has successfully argued (I don’t know if anybody has even tried) that laws against assault are unconstitutional.
So the only way what he said isn’t assault is if you contend that he was not actually threatening to (physically) attack someone who had disagreed with his views on what the law should be. A lawyer might try to make that argument. But if he tried it when the subject of the disagreement was anything unrelated to carrying guns, there is no way he would succeed.
thompson: Nothing he said is illegal, and no law making it such would pass a constitutional challenge.
Actually, if you threaten to use a weapon on someone, that is assault (at least if he is afraid you might actually do so) and is illegal. Indeed, if you threaten any kind of “unwanteded bodily touching” (whether a weapon is involved or not), that is assault. And nobody has successfully argued (I don’t know if anybody has even tried) that laws against assault are unconstitutional.
So the only way what he said isn’t assault is if you contend that he was not actually threatening to (physically) attack someone who had disagreed with his views on what the law should be. A lawyer might try to make that argument. But if he tried it when the subject of the disagreement was anything unrelated to carrying guns, there is no way he would succeed.
thompson: Nothing he said is illegal, and no law making it such would pass a constitutional challenge.
Actually, if you threaten to use a weapon on someone, that is assault (at least if he is afraid you might actually do so) and is illegal. Indeed, if you threaten any kind of “unwanteded bodily touching” (whether a weapon is involved or not), that is assault. And nobody has successfully argued (I don’t know if anybody has even tried) that laws against assault are unconstitutional.
So the only way what he said isn’t assault is if you contend that he was not actually threatening to (physically) attack someone who had disagreed with his views on what the law should be. A lawyer might try to make that argument. But if he tried it when the subject of the disagreement was anything unrelated to carrying guns, there is no way he would succeed.
February statement by Watkins, found by a few seconds Googling:
“This morning I removed a video from my Facebook because I thought there were those that would intentionally misinterpret my words. In this video I referred to treason, and the fact that the penalty for treason was death. My intent was to show that our founders took treason very seriously. Our elected officials have taken an oath to defend the constitution. Dereliction of that oath is an equally serious matter. I was certainly not threatening anyone. I love the constitution dearly, and the constitution is very clear on the process for convicting someone for treason, I was obviously not calling for such a process, nor was I threatening anyone. I simply wished to point out the seriousness of the constitution.
Let me make it clear and unequivocal: I was not talking about hurting legislators, or anyone else. I am an advocate of peaceful non-cooperation. When I speak of “stepping it up a notch” mean within the boundaries of “peaceful non-cooperation”. Instead of just a foot in the door. perhaps we need “sit ins” chanting “hell no we won’t go”.
We at Open Carry Tarrant County denounce in the strongest terms harming or threatening to harm persons or property as a strategy to bring about open carry in Texas. Anyone who has done so, has not done so on behalf of our organization. We at Open Carry Tarrant County proudly follow in the tradition of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in in using peaceful noncooperation as a means to demand our rights.”
He had said of elected officials in Texas who opposed open carry, ““They should be arrested, charged with treason and should face a punishment that could result in being hung from the tree of liberty.””
Is it assault to suggest somebody should be arrested, tried, convicted, and then subjected to the penalty conviction carries? I suspect not.
February statement by Watkins, found by a few seconds Googling:
“This morning I removed a video from my Facebook because I thought there were those that would intentionally misinterpret my words. In this video I referred to treason, and the fact that the penalty for treason was death. My intent was to show that our founders took treason very seriously. Our elected officials have taken an oath to defend the constitution. Dereliction of that oath is an equally serious matter. I was certainly not threatening anyone. I love the constitution dearly, and the constitution is very clear on the process for convicting someone for treason, I was obviously not calling for such a process, nor was I threatening anyone. I simply wished to point out the seriousness of the constitution.
Let me make it clear and unequivocal: I was not talking about hurting legislators, or anyone else. I am an advocate of peaceful non-cooperation. When I speak of “stepping it up a notch” mean within the boundaries of “peaceful non-cooperation”. Instead of just a foot in the door. perhaps we need “sit ins” chanting “hell no we won’t go”.
We at Open Carry Tarrant County denounce in the strongest terms harming or threatening to harm persons or property as a strategy to bring about open carry in Texas. Anyone who has done so, has not done so on behalf of our organization. We at Open Carry Tarrant County proudly follow in the tradition of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in in using peaceful noncooperation as a means to demand our rights.”
He had said of elected officials in Texas who opposed open carry, ““They should be arrested, charged with treason and should face a punishment that could result in being hung from the tree of liberty.””
Is it assault to suggest somebody should be arrested, tried, convicted, and then subjected to the penalty conviction carries? I suspect not.
February statement by Watkins, found by a few seconds Googling:
“This morning I removed a video from my Facebook because I thought there were those that would intentionally misinterpret my words. In this video I referred to treason, and the fact that the penalty for treason was death. My intent was to show that our founders took treason very seriously. Our elected officials have taken an oath to defend the constitution. Dereliction of that oath is an equally serious matter. I was certainly not threatening anyone. I love the constitution dearly, and the constitution is very clear on the process for convicting someone for treason, I was obviously not calling for such a process, nor was I threatening anyone. I simply wished to point out the seriousness of the constitution.
Let me make it clear and unequivocal: I was not talking about hurting legislators, or anyone else. I am an advocate of peaceful non-cooperation. When I speak of “stepping it up a notch” mean within the boundaries of “peaceful non-cooperation”. Instead of just a foot in the door. perhaps we need “sit ins” chanting “hell no we won’t go”.
We at Open Carry Tarrant County denounce in the strongest terms harming or threatening to harm persons or property as a strategy to bring about open carry in Texas. Anyone who has done so, has not done so on behalf of our organization. We at Open Carry Tarrant County proudly follow in the tradition of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in in using peaceful noncooperation as a means to demand our rights.”
He had said of elected officials in Texas who opposed open carry, ““They should be arrested, charged with treason and should face a punishment that could result in being hung from the tree of liberty.””
Is it assault to suggest somebody should be arrested, tried, convicted, and then subjected to the penalty conviction carries? I suspect not.
Is the penalty still hanging these days?
Anyway, I have to wonder why Mr. Watkins felt the need to come out with such a clarification, unless he felt that his words were so ripe for the interpretation as threats of violence.
Once again:
I don’t think they wanna mess with us too much longer. They better start giving us our rights, or this peaceful non-cooperation stuff is gonna be, uh, gamed up. We’re gonna step it up a notch.
There’s nothing there about a legal process.
Is the penalty still hanging these days?
Anyway, I have to wonder why Mr. Watkins felt the need to come out with such a clarification, unless he felt that his words were so ripe for the interpretation as threats of violence.
Once again:
I don’t think they wanna mess with us too much longer. They better start giving us our rights, or this peaceful non-cooperation stuff is gonna be, uh, gamed up. We’re gonna step it up a notch.
There’s nothing there about a legal process.
Is the penalty still hanging these days?
Anyway, I have to wonder why Mr. Watkins felt the need to come out with such a clarification, unless he felt that his words were so ripe for the interpretation as threats of violence.
Once again:
I don’t think they wanna mess with us too much longer. They better start giving us our rights, or this peaceful non-cooperation stuff is gonna be, uh, gamed up. We’re gonna step it up a notch.
There’s nothing there about a legal process.
In short, on occasion Mr Watkins called for legal action. (For all that his claimed legal cause is dubious at best.) But on other occasions, he implicitly called for physical, violent action.
That is, you can find quotes to demonstrate either position. But assault doesn’t require consistant threats of physical action. Just once will do it.
In short, on occasion Mr Watkins called for legal action. (For all that his claimed legal cause is dubious at best.) But on other occasions, he implicitly called for physical, violent action.
That is, you can find quotes to demonstrate either position. But assault doesn’t require consistant threats of physical action. Just once will do it.
In short, on occasion Mr Watkins called for legal action. (For all that his claimed legal cause is dubious at best.) But on other occasions, he implicitly called for physical, violent action.
That is, you can find quotes to demonstrate either position. But assault doesn’t require consistant threats of physical action. Just once will do it.
The traditions of Gandhi and MLK included being on the receiving end of death by murderous gunfire.
Rosa Parks somehow made it through without having Second Amendment solutions visited upon her, though I’m sure her mail and answering machine were rife with bidders for riddling her body with bullets.
Peaceful non-cooperation while brandishing killing weaponry is not peaceful anymore than Timothy McVeigh’s purchase of fertilizer was his way of ensuring a bountiful tomato harvest in the front yard of the Murrah Building.
The English language wants to shoot itself in the head after listening to Watkins’ bloviations.
Harsher judgements are made and little surprise expected about what I, the owner of zilch guns, might one day be reported in the papers to have done.
But Watkins himself and now his sympathizers tout him as Martin Luther Lennon making demands through the barrel of a gun.
Just call it what it is.
If you are brave enough to wave a weapon around to get your way, what’s the need for the forked tongue, although I’m told the Constitution guarantees the right to bullsh*t yourself and everyone else.
My reading of the Second Amendment includes the absolute right and certainly is silent and does not prohibit or limit the firing of weapons whenever and wherever I want, should I decide to possess them.
That’s the next legal nonsense coming. Within five years, Watkins et al will be firing their weapons in the air at will on street corners and claiming it a right provided by God, that noted murderer, which may not be limited in any way by local ordinance.
Soon thereafter, the firing of bullets at will during civil discourse will be construed as free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment by a 5-4 margin in the Supreme Court.
Booth vrs Lincoln, with the gun and bullet lobby financing the plaintiffs case.
The traditions of Gandhi and MLK included being on the receiving end of death by murderous gunfire.
Rosa Parks somehow made it through without having Second Amendment solutions visited upon her, though I’m sure her mail and answering machine were rife with bidders for riddling her body with bullets.
Peaceful non-cooperation while brandishing killing weaponry is not peaceful anymore than Timothy McVeigh’s purchase of fertilizer was his way of ensuring a bountiful tomato harvest in the front yard of the Murrah Building.
The English language wants to shoot itself in the head after listening to Watkins’ bloviations.
Harsher judgements are made and little surprise expected about what I, the owner of zilch guns, might one day be reported in the papers to have done.
But Watkins himself and now his sympathizers tout him as Martin Luther Lennon making demands through the barrel of a gun.
Just call it what it is.
If you are brave enough to wave a weapon around to get your way, what’s the need for the forked tongue, although I’m told the Constitution guarantees the right to bullsh*t yourself and everyone else.
My reading of the Second Amendment includes the absolute right and certainly is silent and does not prohibit or limit the firing of weapons whenever and wherever I want, should I decide to possess them.
That’s the next legal nonsense coming. Within five years, Watkins et al will be firing their weapons in the air at will on street corners and claiming it a right provided by God, that noted murderer, which may not be limited in any way by local ordinance.
Soon thereafter, the firing of bullets at will during civil discourse will be construed as free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment by a 5-4 margin in the Supreme Court.
Booth vrs Lincoln, with the gun and bullet lobby financing the plaintiffs case.
The traditions of Gandhi and MLK included being on the receiving end of death by murderous gunfire.
Rosa Parks somehow made it through without having Second Amendment solutions visited upon her, though I’m sure her mail and answering machine were rife with bidders for riddling her body with bullets.
Peaceful non-cooperation while brandishing killing weaponry is not peaceful anymore than Timothy McVeigh’s purchase of fertilizer was his way of ensuring a bountiful tomato harvest in the front yard of the Murrah Building.
The English language wants to shoot itself in the head after listening to Watkins’ bloviations.
Harsher judgements are made and little surprise expected about what I, the owner of zilch guns, might one day be reported in the papers to have done.
But Watkins himself and now his sympathizers tout him as Martin Luther Lennon making demands through the barrel of a gun.
Just call it what it is.
If you are brave enough to wave a weapon around to get your way, what’s the need for the forked tongue, although I’m told the Constitution guarantees the right to bullsh*t yourself and everyone else.
My reading of the Second Amendment includes the absolute right and certainly is silent and does not prohibit or limit the firing of weapons whenever and wherever I want, should I decide to possess them.
That’s the next legal nonsense coming. Within five years, Watkins et al will be firing their weapons in the air at will on street corners and claiming it a right provided by God, that noted murderer, which may not be limited in any way by local ordinance.
Soon thereafter, the firing of bullets at will during civil discourse will be construed as free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment by a 5-4 margin in the Supreme Court.
Booth vrs Lincoln, with the gun and bullet lobby financing the plaintiffs case.
James Earle Ray, Gandhi’s killer, and Lee Harvey Oswald had to go to some trouble to conceal their weapons before the deed.
It is so nice to know that added inconvenience is now removed for them in Dallas.
Officer in Dealey Plaza in 1963 after the shots rang out: “We think the shots came from either the Book Depository or the grassy knoll. Send some men into both areas and take those into custody who are carrying a weapon for questioning.”
Deputy: “Uh, Sir, you mean you want EVERYONE taken into custody? This is Texas for crying out loud.”
Officer: “We’re going to need bigger paddy wagons.”
James Earle Ray, Gandhi’s killer, and Lee Harvey Oswald had to go to some trouble to conceal their weapons before the deed.
It is so nice to know that added inconvenience is now removed for them in Dallas.
Officer in Dealey Plaza in 1963 after the shots rang out: “We think the shots came from either the Book Depository or the grassy knoll. Send some men into both areas and take those into custody who are carrying a weapon for questioning.”
Deputy: “Uh, Sir, you mean you want EVERYONE taken into custody? This is Texas for crying out loud.”
Officer: “We’re going to need bigger paddy wagons.”
James Earle Ray, Gandhi’s killer, and Lee Harvey Oswald had to go to some trouble to conceal their weapons before the deed.
It is so nice to know that added inconvenience is now removed for them in Dallas.
Officer in Dealey Plaza in 1963 after the shots rang out: “We think the shots came from either the Book Depository or the grassy knoll. Send some men into both areas and take those into custody who are carrying a weapon for questioning.”
Deputy: “Uh, Sir, you mean you want EVERYONE taken into custody? This is Texas for crying out loud.”
Officer: “We’re going to need bigger paddy wagons.”
Actually, if you threaten to use a weapon on someone, that is assault (at least if he is afraid you might actually do so) and is illegal.
Actually, how the victim feels is largely irrelevant, iirc. What matters is either an objective standard (a reasonable person would be threatened), a subjective standard (the person meant it to be threatening), or both.
For a long, disturbing look at an overall terrible human being and a more educated look at whether something was threatening:
http://popehat.com/2013/08/06/true-threats-true-incitement-or-truly-crazy-the-rhetoric-of-deranged-cyberstalker-bill-schmalfeldt/
And a shorter, less terrible human story, that gets to the heart of true threats:
http://popehat.com/2012/12/19/professor-loomis-and-the-nra-a-story-in-which-everyone-annoys-me/
There are even further links in the second one with a bunch of different examples and discussions by Ken White, who seems to know his shit.
Long story short, I’m not really seeing what Watkins did as a ‘true threat’ and I would be surprised if an assault charge stuck. I’m obviously not an expert, but it doesn’t seem to rise to a level beyond examples given by White.
Actually, if you threaten to use a weapon on someone, that is assault (at least if he is afraid you might actually do so) and is illegal.
Actually, how the victim feels is largely irrelevant, iirc. What matters is either an objective standard (a reasonable person would be threatened), a subjective standard (the person meant it to be threatening), or both.
For a long, disturbing look at an overall terrible human being and a more educated look at whether something was threatening:
http://popehat.com/2013/08/06/true-threats-true-incitement-or-truly-crazy-the-rhetoric-of-deranged-cyberstalker-bill-schmalfeldt/
And a shorter, less terrible human story, that gets to the heart of true threats:
http://popehat.com/2012/12/19/professor-loomis-and-the-nra-a-story-in-which-everyone-annoys-me/
There are even further links in the second one with a bunch of different examples and discussions by Ken White, who seems to know his shit.
Long story short, I’m not really seeing what Watkins did as a ‘true threat’ and I would be surprised if an assault charge stuck. I’m obviously not an expert, but it doesn’t seem to rise to a level beyond examples given by White.
Actually, if you threaten to use a weapon on someone, that is assault (at least if he is afraid you might actually do so) and is illegal.
Actually, how the victim feels is largely irrelevant, iirc. What matters is either an objective standard (a reasonable person would be threatened), a subjective standard (the person meant it to be threatening), or both.
For a long, disturbing look at an overall terrible human being and a more educated look at whether something was threatening:
http://popehat.com/2013/08/06/true-threats-true-incitement-or-truly-crazy-the-rhetoric-of-deranged-cyberstalker-bill-schmalfeldt/
And a shorter, less terrible human story, that gets to the heart of true threats:
http://popehat.com/2012/12/19/professor-loomis-and-the-nra-a-story-in-which-everyone-annoys-me/
There are even further links in the second one with a bunch of different examples and discussions by Ken White, who seems to know his shit.
Long story short, I’m not really seeing what Watkins did as a ‘true threat’ and I would be surprised if an assault charge stuck. I’m obviously not an expert, but it doesn’t seem to rise to a level beyond examples given by White.
I thank thompson for his kind words …. I think.
Also, where can I get the anti-anxiety meds he’s on.
I kid.
I thank thompson for his kind words …. I think.
Also, where can I get the anti-anxiety meds he’s on.
I kid.
I thank thompson for his kind words …. I think.
Also, where can I get the anti-anxiety meds he’s on.
I kid.
How “questioning” suddenly became my handle is a mystery wrapped in a tortilla shell made of sliced baloney.
How “questioning” suddenly became my handle is a mystery wrapped in a tortilla shell made of sliced baloney.
How “questioning” suddenly became my handle is a mystery wrapped in a tortilla shell made of sliced baloney.
How “questioning” suddenly became my handle is a mystery wrapped in a tortilla wrap made of sliced baloney.
How “questioning” suddenly became my handle is a mystery wrapped in a tortilla wrap made of sliced baloney.
How “questioning” suddenly became my handle is a mystery wrapped in a tortilla wrap made of sliced baloney.
“My bad.”
So, what did you do with the real Brett Bellmore?
The question of insurrection and/or revolution and its usually attendant violence is indeed an interesting one.
Were the quite distinct minority of colonialists justified in taking up violence against George III?
Did the Paris Commune have justice on its side?
Did Kerensky’s inability to deal with the terrible circumstances of the War justify the October Revolution?
Was Mussolini’s march on Rome an exercise in righteousness?
How about the many revolutions that have taken place (many of which failed miserably) since?
How about the Black Panthers or the Weathermen?
When does oppression justify an organized violent response? What is the tipping point?
Tough questions.
But all in all, the open carry folks (as of now) have little, if any such justification. If they want to engage in more demonstrations and “sit-ins” more power to them.
Just remember, one of the central tenants of civil disobedience is the commitment to take whatever legal punishment is meted out by the oppressors.
Just sayin’
All power to the People.
Regards,
“My bad.”
So, what did you do with the real Brett Bellmore?
The question of insurrection and/or revolution and its usually attendant violence is indeed an interesting one.
Were the quite distinct minority of colonialists justified in taking up violence against George III?
Did the Paris Commune have justice on its side?
Did Kerensky’s inability to deal with the terrible circumstances of the War justify the October Revolution?
Was Mussolini’s march on Rome an exercise in righteousness?
How about the many revolutions that have taken place (many of which failed miserably) since?
How about the Black Panthers or the Weathermen?
When does oppression justify an organized violent response? What is the tipping point?
Tough questions.
But all in all, the open carry folks (as of now) have little, if any such justification. If they want to engage in more demonstrations and “sit-ins” more power to them.
Just remember, one of the central tenants of civil disobedience is the commitment to take whatever legal punishment is meted out by the oppressors.
Just sayin’
All power to the People.
Regards,
“My bad.”
So, what did you do with the real Brett Bellmore?
The question of insurrection and/or revolution and its usually attendant violence is indeed an interesting one.
Were the quite distinct minority of colonialists justified in taking up violence against George III?
Did the Paris Commune have justice on its side?
Did Kerensky’s inability to deal with the terrible circumstances of the War justify the October Revolution?
Was Mussolini’s march on Rome an exercise in righteousness?
How about the many revolutions that have taken place (many of which failed miserably) since?
How about the Black Panthers or the Weathermen?
When does oppression justify an organized violent response? What is the tipping point?
Tough questions.
But all in all, the open carry folks (as of now) have little, if any such justification. If they want to engage in more demonstrations and “sit-ins” more power to them.
Just remember, one of the central tenants of civil disobedience is the commitment to take whatever legal punishment is meted out by the oppressors.
Just sayin’
All power to the People.
Regards,
Long story short, I’m not really seeing what Watkins did as a ‘true threat’
I appreciate that people can and will engage in strong language without intending to actually threaten anybody.
Watkins’ comments follow an episode where he and his buddies confronted members of the TX legislature in person. When asked to leave, he prevented staffers from closing the door behind him by putting his foot in the door, and then asked the staffer “what he was going to do about it”.
Members of the TX legislature found Watkins & co’s actions sufficiently belligerent that they OK’d the use of emergency buttons to call for public safety officers.
Because, obviously, they are a bunch of wimps.
That is the context for Watkins’ comments.
I don’t really give a crap if his actions or words rise to the level of a legally actionable “true threat”.
IMO it’s beyond naive to think that there was no intent to intimidate legislators. There should be zero tolerance for that in public discourse.
The “free marketplace of ideas” is not so free when arguments are made in the form of threats.
Long story short, I’m not really seeing what Watkins did as a ‘true threat’
I appreciate that people can and will engage in strong language without intending to actually threaten anybody.
Watkins’ comments follow an episode where he and his buddies confronted members of the TX legislature in person. When asked to leave, he prevented staffers from closing the door behind him by putting his foot in the door, and then asked the staffer “what he was going to do about it”.
Members of the TX legislature found Watkins & co’s actions sufficiently belligerent that they OK’d the use of emergency buttons to call for public safety officers.
Because, obviously, they are a bunch of wimps.
That is the context for Watkins’ comments.
I don’t really give a crap if his actions or words rise to the level of a legally actionable “true threat”.
IMO it’s beyond naive to think that there was no intent to intimidate legislators. There should be zero tolerance for that in public discourse.
The “free marketplace of ideas” is not so free when arguments are made in the form of threats.
Long story short, I’m not really seeing what Watkins did as a ‘true threat’
I appreciate that people can and will engage in strong language without intending to actually threaten anybody.
Watkins’ comments follow an episode where he and his buddies confronted members of the TX legislature in person. When asked to leave, he prevented staffers from closing the door behind him by putting his foot in the door, and then asked the staffer “what he was going to do about it”.
Members of the TX legislature found Watkins & co’s actions sufficiently belligerent that they OK’d the use of emergency buttons to call for public safety officers.
Because, obviously, they are a bunch of wimps.
That is the context for Watkins’ comments.
I don’t really give a crap if his actions or words rise to the level of a legally actionable “true threat”.
IMO it’s beyond naive to think that there was no intent to intimidate legislators. There should be zero tolerance for that in public discourse.
The “free marketplace of ideas” is not so free when arguments are made in the form of threats.
The only valid kind of intimidation that should be visited on legislators is the threat to vote them out of office. (Which, for some, may be the most terrifying threat of all….)
The only valid kind of intimidation that should be visited on legislators is the threat to vote them out of office. (Which, for some, may be the most terrifying threat of all….)
The only valid kind of intimidation that should be visited on legislators is the threat to vote them out of office. (Which, for some, may be the most terrifying threat of all….)
I thank thompson for his kind words …. I think.
They were sincere…for what it’s worth.
Also, where can I get the anti-anxiety meds he’s on.
I’m high on life.
I thank thompson for his kind words …. I think.
They were sincere…for what it’s worth.
Also, where can I get the anti-anxiety meds he’s on.
I’m high on life.
I thank thompson for his kind words …. I think.
They were sincere…for what it’s worth.
Also, where can I get the anti-anxiety meds he’s on.
I’m high on life.
Watkins’ comments follow an episode where he and his buddies confronted members of the TX legislature in person. When asked to leave, he prevented staffers from closing the door behind him by putting his foot in the door, and then asked the staffer “what he was going to do about it”.
A foot in the door and what are you going to do about it? The guy is an ass, but that’s not a threat. Maybe criminal trespass.
I don’t really give a crap if his actions or words rise to the level of a legally actionable “true threat”.
Ok, great. You’re not talking about any sort of legal remedy. I’m in agreement.
IMO it’s beyond naive to think that there was no intent to intimidate legislators.
Call me naive. You wouldn’t be the first. But I have strong doubts, based on what I’ve seen of him, that he anything but a blowhard who wants to paint himself as a freedom fighter in some epic struggle.
There should be zero tolerance for that in public discourse.
I’d agree that his rhetoric has no place in productive discussions. Which is why I think he should be ignored.
The “free marketplace of ideas” is not so free when arguments are made in the form of threats.
Agreed. In principle, at least.
Watkins’ comments follow an episode where he and his buddies confronted members of the TX legislature in person. When asked to leave, he prevented staffers from closing the door behind him by putting his foot in the door, and then asked the staffer “what he was going to do about it”.
A foot in the door and what are you going to do about it? The guy is an ass, but that’s not a threat. Maybe criminal trespass.
I don’t really give a crap if his actions or words rise to the level of a legally actionable “true threat”.
Ok, great. You’re not talking about any sort of legal remedy. I’m in agreement.
IMO it’s beyond naive to think that there was no intent to intimidate legislators.
Call me naive. You wouldn’t be the first. But I have strong doubts, based on what I’ve seen of him, that he anything but a blowhard who wants to paint himself as a freedom fighter in some epic struggle.
There should be zero tolerance for that in public discourse.
I’d agree that his rhetoric has no place in productive discussions. Which is why I think he should be ignored.
The “free marketplace of ideas” is not so free when arguments are made in the form of threats.
Agreed. In principle, at least.
Watkins’ comments follow an episode where he and his buddies confronted members of the TX legislature in person. When asked to leave, he prevented staffers from closing the door behind him by putting his foot in the door, and then asked the staffer “what he was going to do about it”.
A foot in the door and what are you going to do about it? The guy is an ass, but that’s not a threat. Maybe criminal trespass.
I don’t really give a crap if his actions or words rise to the level of a legally actionable “true threat”.
Ok, great. You’re not talking about any sort of legal remedy. I’m in agreement.
IMO it’s beyond naive to think that there was no intent to intimidate legislators.
Call me naive. You wouldn’t be the first. But I have strong doubts, based on what I’ve seen of him, that he anything but a blowhard who wants to paint himself as a freedom fighter in some epic struggle.
There should be zero tolerance for that in public discourse.
I’d agree that his rhetoric has no place in productive discussions. Which is why I think he should be ignored.
The “free marketplace of ideas” is not so free when arguments are made in the form of threats.
Agreed. In principle, at least.
Armed conservative legislators and the NRA have for years now been passing laws in states giving individuals the unquestioned right to use deadly force if someone exhibits that exact threatening behavior in homes and workplaces.
Cops bring down black men in a hail of gunfire for less, weekly it seems. In fact, they shoot them in the back as the victim tries to avoid confrontation in some cases.
Why is Watkins afforded such shrugging … not exactly good will …. but blowhards will be blowhards, boys will be boys latitude.
Ignore him? He’s armed when he’s being a blowhard.
Do I need to recite George Carlin’s “It’s the Quiet Ones Ya Gotta Watch” routine yet again?
There’s not a bartender in America’s better but rougher drinking establishments that wouldn’t spray his face with buckshot the minute he tried to gain entry with his foot in the door and threaten with the words “What are you gonna do?”
If Barack Obama stuck his foot in Ted Nugent’s office door and said “what are gonna do about it”, Nugent would shoot him dead.
Blowhards are one thing. Armed blowhards need a net thrown over them.
Here’s how you deal with an armed blowhard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KctqZVYgmO4
I’m the guy laughing “Har, Har, Har” at the armed blowhard.
But I see James Coburn’s point, so to speak.
Armed conservative legislators and the NRA have for years now been passing laws in states giving individuals the unquestioned right to use deadly force if someone exhibits that exact threatening behavior in homes and workplaces.
Cops bring down black men in a hail of gunfire for less, weekly it seems. In fact, they shoot them in the back as the victim tries to avoid confrontation in some cases.
Why is Watkins afforded such shrugging … not exactly good will …. but blowhards will be blowhards, boys will be boys latitude.
Ignore him? He’s armed when he’s being a blowhard.
Do I need to recite George Carlin’s “It’s the Quiet Ones Ya Gotta Watch” routine yet again?
There’s not a bartender in America’s better but rougher drinking establishments that wouldn’t spray his face with buckshot the minute he tried to gain entry with his foot in the door and threaten with the words “What are you gonna do?”
If Barack Obama stuck his foot in Ted Nugent’s office door and said “what are gonna do about it”, Nugent would shoot him dead.
Blowhards are one thing. Armed blowhards need a net thrown over them.
Here’s how you deal with an armed blowhard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KctqZVYgmO4
I’m the guy laughing “Har, Har, Har” at the armed blowhard.
But I see James Coburn’s point, so to speak.
Armed conservative legislators and the NRA have for years now been passing laws in states giving individuals the unquestioned right to use deadly force if someone exhibits that exact threatening behavior in homes and workplaces.
Cops bring down black men in a hail of gunfire for less, weekly it seems. In fact, they shoot them in the back as the victim tries to avoid confrontation in some cases.
Why is Watkins afforded such shrugging … not exactly good will …. but blowhards will be blowhards, boys will be boys latitude.
Ignore him? He’s armed when he’s being a blowhard.
Do I need to recite George Carlin’s “It’s the Quiet Ones Ya Gotta Watch” routine yet again?
There’s not a bartender in America’s better but rougher drinking establishments that wouldn’t spray his face with buckshot the minute he tried to gain entry with his foot in the door and threaten with the words “What are you gonna do?”
If Barack Obama stuck his foot in Ted Nugent’s office door and said “what are gonna do about it”, Nugent would shoot him dead.
Blowhards are one thing. Armed blowhards need a net thrown over them.
Here’s how you deal with an armed blowhard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KctqZVYgmO4
I’m the guy laughing “Har, Har, Har” at the armed blowhard.
But I see James Coburn’s point, so to speak.
“Just remember, one of the central tenants of civil disobedience is the commitment to take whatever legal punishment is meted out by the oppressors.”
IF you can’t win in court, that is. Open carry advocates have a darned good chance of winning in court.
“Just remember, one of the central tenants of civil disobedience is the commitment to take whatever legal punishment is meted out by the oppressors.”
IF you can’t win in court, that is. Open carry advocates have a darned good chance of winning in court.
“Just remember, one of the central tenants of civil disobedience is the commitment to take whatever legal punishment is meted out by the oppressors.”
IF you can’t win in court, that is. Open carry advocates have a darned good chance of winning in court.
Why is Watkins afforded such shrugging … not exactly good will …. but blowhards will be blowhards, boys will be boys latitude.
It is very much *not* goodwill.
But in sharp contrast to this:
Cops bring down black men in a hail of gunfire for less, weekly it seems. In fact, they shoot them in the back as the victim tries to avoid confrontation in some cases.
Watkins hasn’t killed anybody. He’s a blowhard, not a murderer.
Why is Watkins afforded such shrugging … not exactly good will …. but blowhards will be blowhards, boys will be boys latitude.
It is very much *not* goodwill.
But in sharp contrast to this:
Cops bring down black men in a hail of gunfire for less, weekly it seems. In fact, they shoot them in the back as the victim tries to avoid confrontation in some cases.
Watkins hasn’t killed anybody. He’s a blowhard, not a murderer.
Why is Watkins afforded such shrugging … not exactly good will …. but blowhards will be blowhards, boys will be boys latitude.
It is very much *not* goodwill.
But in sharp contrast to this:
Cops bring down black men in a hail of gunfire for less, weekly it seems. In fact, they shoot them in the back as the victim tries to avoid confrontation in some cases.
Watkins hasn’t killed anybody. He’s a blowhard, not a murderer.
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Who is going to f*ck with me?
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Who is going to f*ck with me?
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Who is going to f*ck with me?
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Ah, I see you’ve read Atlas Shrugged.
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Ah, I see you’ve read Atlas Shrugged.
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Ah, I see you’ve read Atlas Shrugged.
thompson, do you think that Watkins and his friends intended to intimidate the folks in the TX legislature who had voted against open carry?
Or were they just there to express their disagreement with their position?
thompson, do you think that Watkins and his friends intended to intimidate the folks in the TX legislature who had voted against open carry?
Or were they just there to express their disagreement with their position?
thompson, do you think that Watkins and his friends intended to intimidate the folks in the TX legislature who had voted against open carry?
Or were they just there to express their disagreement with their position?
thompson, do you think that Watkins and his friends intended to intimidate the folks in the TX legislature who had voted against open carry?
No, not really. Naive, remember?
Or were they just there to express their disagreement with their position?
I got the impression they were more trying to make a statement by making a scene and being disruptive.
thompson, do you think that Watkins and his friends intended to intimidate the folks in the TX legislature who had voted against open carry?
No, not really. Naive, remember?
Or were they just there to express their disagreement with their position?
I got the impression they were more trying to make a statement by making a scene and being disruptive.
thompson, do you think that Watkins and his friends intended to intimidate the folks in the TX legislature who had voted against open carry?
No, not really. Naive, remember?
Or were they just there to express their disagreement with their position?
I got the impression they were more trying to make a statement by making a scene and being disruptive.
ok.
with respect, imo yes, you are being naive.
peace out.
ok.
with respect, imo yes, you are being naive.
peace out.
ok.
with respect, imo yes, you are being naive.
peace out.
with respect, imo yes, you are being naive.
Fair enough. Have a good night.
with respect, imo yes, you are being naive.
Fair enough. Have a good night.
with respect, imo yes, you are being naive.
Fair enough. Have a good night.
IF you can’t win in court, that is. Open carry advocates have a darned good chance of winning in court.
Well, then he has an extremely simple remedy. (And he doesn’t need to abuse legislators to do it.) Just start doing an Open Carry where it isn’t legal — your basic civil disobedience for this subject. Get arrested, go to trial, and make your defense the 2nd Amendment. (That is, I assume, why you think he would win.) And then get the law that says you can’t Open Carry tossed out by the courts.
Simple, no? So why bother with the slow, tedious (and, apparently, not very sucessful) legislative process?
IF you can’t win in court, that is. Open carry advocates have a darned good chance of winning in court.
Well, then he has an extremely simple remedy. (And he doesn’t need to abuse legislators to do it.) Just start doing an Open Carry where it isn’t legal — your basic civil disobedience for this subject. Get arrested, go to trial, and make your defense the 2nd Amendment. (That is, I assume, why you think he would win.) And then get the law that says you can’t Open Carry tossed out by the courts.
Simple, no? So why bother with the slow, tedious (and, apparently, not very sucessful) legislative process?
IF you can’t win in court, that is. Open carry advocates have a darned good chance of winning in court.
Well, then he has an extremely simple remedy. (And he doesn’t need to abuse legislators to do it.) Just start doing an Open Carry where it isn’t legal — your basic civil disobedience for this subject. Get arrested, go to trial, and make your defense the 2nd Amendment. (That is, I assume, why you think he would win.) And then get the law that says you can’t Open Carry tossed out by the courts.
Simple, no? So why bother with the slow, tedious (and, apparently, not very sucessful) legislative process?
Yes, a darned good chance of winning, indeed. Didn’t even have to take the state to court, he won in the court of public opinion.
Not a complete victory, they’ve included a requirement for a license. But an incremental victory, the licensing requirement can be removed next year.
Yes, a darned good chance of winning, indeed. Didn’t even have to take the state to court, he won in the court of public opinion.
Not a complete victory, they’ve included a requirement for a license. But an incremental victory, the licensing requirement can be removed next year.
Yes, a darned good chance of winning, indeed. Didn’t even have to take the state to court, he won in the court of public opinion.
Not a complete victory, they’ve included a requirement for a license. But an incremental victory, the licensing requirement can be removed next year.
thompson, have a good weekend.
Try to calm down. Your constant flying off the handle around here at the slightest provocation is making everyone jumpy.
Being in a state of constant outrage as you seem to be constantly will take years off your life.
When you find your heart racing and your knees jerking, I’d suggest reading the courtroom scene in Atlas Shrugged (yeah, read it when I was 13), wherein Dagny Taggert strips off and tap dances in stiletto heels atopt the bench, while Judge, jury, and the gallery sing “I’ve Been Working On the Railroad” in rounds, and as film is shown of throbbing locomotives repeatedly entering dark tunnels, the cabooses, and hers, swaying to the throbbing rhythm in syncopation with the underlying drone of John Galt’s stupifyingly lengthy speeches, which like any decent soft porn, build to multiple throbbing climaxes in rough twenty minutes intervals, which, inevitably, throb with earnestness.
I’d keep a box of Kleenex handy.
It puts me to sleep every time.
I worked on a draft of a musical version for awhile but never got to the end of it.
Working Title: The Mahabharata For Lunkheads
thompson, have a good weekend.
Try to calm down. Your constant flying off the handle around here at the slightest provocation is making everyone jumpy.
Being in a state of constant outrage as you seem to be constantly will take years off your life.
When you find your heart racing and your knees jerking, I’d suggest reading the courtroom scene in Atlas Shrugged (yeah, read it when I was 13), wherein Dagny Taggert strips off and tap dances in stiletto heels atopt the bench, while Judge, jury, and the gallery sing “I’ve Been Working On the Railroad” in rounds, and as film is shown of throbbing locomotives repeatedly entering dark tunnels, the cabooses, and hers, swaying to the throbbing rhythm in syncopation with the underlying drone of John Galt’s stupifyingly lengthy speeches, which like any decent soft porn, build to multiple throbbing climaxes in rough twenty minutes intervals, which, inevitably, throb with earnestness.
I’d keep a box of Kleenex handy.
It puts me to sleep every time.
I worked on a draft of a musical version for awhile but never got to the end of it.
Working Title: The Mahabharata For Lunkheads
thompson, have a good weekend.
Try to calm down. Your constant flying off the handle around here at the slightest provocation is making everyone jumpy.
Being in a state of constant outrage as you seem to be constantly will take years off your life.
When you find your heart racing and your knees jerking, I’d suggest reading the courtroom scene in Atlas Shrugged (yeah, read it when I was 13), wherein Dagny Taggert strips off and tap dances in stiletto heels atopt the bench, while Judge, jury, and the gallery sing “I’ve Been Working On the Railroad” in rounds, and as film is shown of throbbing locomotives repeatedly entering dark tunnels, the cabooses, and hers, swaying to the throbbing rhythm in syncopation with the underlying drone of John Galt’s stupifyingly lengthy speeches, which like any decent soft porn, build to multiple throbbing climaxes in rough twenty minutes intervals, which, inevitably, throb with earnestness.
I’d keep a box of Kleenex handy.
It puts me to sleep every time.
I worked on a draft of a musical version for awhile but never got to the end of it.
Working Title: The Mahabharata For Lunkheads
“the licensing requirement can be removed next year.”
Well, I hope he’s carrying other I.D. then so his body can be identified the next time he sticks his foot in someone’s door can asks “What are you gonna do about it?”
Being hit in the face with a cream pie projectile is a horrible mess for the Coroner.
“the licensing requirement can be removed next year.”
Well, I hope he’s carrying other I.D. then so his body can be identified the next time he sticks his foot in someone’s door can asks “What are you gonna do about it?”
Being hit in the face with a cream pie projectile is a horrible mess for the Coroner.
“the licensing requirement can be removed next year.”
Well, I hope he’s carrying other I.D. then so his body can be identified the next time he sticks his foot in someone’s door can asks “What are you gonna do about it?”
Being hit in the face with a cream pie projectile is a horrible mess for the Coroner.
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Is your *other* online handle “Florida Man”?
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Is your *other* online handle “Florida Man”?
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Is your *other* online handle “Florida Man”?
“Florida Man”
9.8
All thumbs up.
“Florida Man”
9.8
All thumbs up.
“Florida Man”
9.8
All thumbs up.
Second working title:
“Fifty Shades of Stupefaction”
Second working title:
“Fifty Shades of Stupefaction”
Second working title:
“Fifty Shades of Stupefaction”
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Where do you put the gun?
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Where do you put the gun?
I want to open carry alcohol and guns at the same time in public.
While naked. In Court.
Where do you put the gun?
Count:
I’m glad I read your 8:25 on my phone, instead of computer.
No damage to the keyboard.
As it stands, one more coffee stain on an already stained rug really doesn’t make to much difference. 🙂
Best of luck on your musical adaption. If it ever hits Broadway, I’ll take the train up to NY. A worthwhile trip, it sounds like.
Count:
I’m glad I read your 8:25 on my phone, instead of computer.
No damage to the keyboard.
As it stands, one more coffee stain on an already stained rug really doesn’t make to much difference. 🙂
Best of luck on your musical adaption. If it ever hits Broadway, I’ll take the train up to NY. A worthwhile trip, it sounds like.
Count:
I’m glad I read your 8:25 on my phone, instead of computer.
No damage to the keyboard.
As it stands, one more coffee stain on an already stained rug really doesn’t make to much difference. 🙂
Best of luck on your musical adaption. If it ever hits Broadway, I’ll take the train up to NY. A worthwhile trip, it sounds like.
Not really a problem. A gun belt (or bandolero) doesn’t really count as “dressed” (i.e. not naked).
Except, I suppose, for those who “feel undressed without a gun”….
Not really a problem. A gun belt (or bandolero) doesn’t really count as “dressed” (i.e. not naked).
Except, I suppose, for those who “feel undressed without a gun”….
Not really a problem. A gun belt (or bandolero) doesn’t really count as “dressed” (i.e. not naked).
Except, I suppose, for those who “feel undressed without a gun”….
A drink in one hand and a weapon in the other.
The gun is on its own.
A drink in one hand and a weapon in the other.
The gun is on its own.
A drink in one hand and a weapon in the other.
The gun is on its own.
OK, so, an actual question about the whole TX open carry thing.
Why is it important to be able to carry a handgun openly? In TX you can carry a long gun openly, or a handgun concealed. What is the added value of carrying a handgun openly?
Is it just because folks don’t want anybody else telling them what they can and can’t do? Or is there some actual benefit to displaying your handgun?
It seems to me that, for most self-defense purposes, it would be advantageous for a potential opponent to *not* know, up front and in advance, that you are armed.
But, guns are not my thing, so I could be completely wrong about that.
Folks are going to fairly great lengths to extend the existing carry privileges by what seems, to me, to be at most an incremental amount.
Just curious.
OK, so, an actual question about the whole TX open carry thing.
Why is it important to be able to carry a handgun openly? In TX you can carry a long gun openly, or a handgun concealed. What is the added value of carrying a handgun openly?
Is it just because folks don’t want anybody else telling them what they can and can’t do? Or is there some actual benefit to displaying your handgun?
It seems to me that, for most self-defense purposes, it would be advantageous for a potential opponent to *not* know, up front and in advance, that you are armed.
But, guns are not my thing, so I could be completely wrong about that.
Folks are going to fairly great lengths to extend the existing carry privileges by what seems, to me, to be at most an incremental amount.
Just curious.
OK, so, an actual question about the whole TX open carry thing.
Why is it important to be able to carry a handgun openly? In TX you can carry a long gun openly, or a handgun concealed. What is the added value of carrying a handgun openly?
Is it just because folks don’t want anybody else telling them what they can and can’t do? Or is there some actual benefit to displaying your handgun?
It seems to me that, for most self-defense purposes, it would be advantageous for a potential opponent to *not* know, up front and in advance, that you are armed.
But, guns are not my thing, so I could be completely wrong about that.
Folks are going to fairly great lengths to extend the existing carry privileges by what seems, to me, to be at most an incremental amount.
Just curious.
No pizza for you:
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/no-pizza-for-open-carry-gun-families/Content?oid=1225835
I tried to find a photo of two nimrods in Texas standing at restaurant counter with pistols strapped to their belts, probably ordering lattes with gunpowder.
They looked ridiculous.
I tried to imagine they were a gay couple down at the cake store ordering up a wedding cake for their nuptials and the clerk was telling them no dice.
Maybe there is an upside to carrying when you run into a cranky, narrow-minded merchant.
Stupid can be fun.
Here’s some pictures of paradise for the gun stupid:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/
No pizza for you:
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/no-pizza-for-open-carry-gun-families/Content?oid=1225835
I tried to find a photo of two nimrods in Texas standing at restaurant counter with pistols strapped to their belts, probably ordering lattes with gunpowder.
They looked ridiculous.
I tried to imagine they were a gay couple down at the cake store ordering up a wedding cake for their nuptials and the clerk was telling them no dice.
Maybe there is an upside to carrying when you run into a cranky, narrow-minded merchant.
Stupid can be fun.
Here’s some pictures of paradise for the gun stupid:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/
No pizza for you:
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/no-pizza-for-open-carry-gun-families/Content?oid=1225835
I tried to find a photo of two nimrods in Texas standing at restaurant counter with pistols strapped to their belts, probably ordering lattes with gunpowder.
They looked ridiculous.
I tried to imagine they were a gay couple down at the cake store ordering up a wedding cake for their nuptials and the clerk was telling them no dice.
Maybe there is an upside to carrying when you run into a cranky, narrow-minded merchant.
Stupid can be fun.
Here’s some pictures of paradise for the gun stupid:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/
Tipping is advised:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/waitresses-carrying-guns/11833437/
Russell, maybe it’s the dominance behavior seen among chimpanzees.
Or maybe its like college girls on Spring Break or at Mardi Gras lifting their shirts to exhibit their watchamacallits.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing. Maybe their fathers abandoned them and they were raised by their mothers.
Maybe it’s penis envy.
Maybe the gun carriers will also begin wearing transparent codpieces instead of pants, cause the Founding Fathers said nothing about crotch bulges in the Constitution, so it must be freedom.
Now that we’re passing laws willy nilly that discrimination for religious reasons is the new rage, I expect the laws allowing concealed and open carry of weapons to make things interesting.
Packing heat (for all to see particularly) changes the terms of discourse and face to face interaction.
It makes me sullen.
You don’t want to make me sullen.
Tipping is advised:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/waitresses-carrying-guns/11833437/
Russell, maybe it’s the dominance behavior seen among chimpanzees.
Or maybe its like college girls on Spring Break or at Mardi Gras lifting their shirts to exhibit their watchamacallits.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing. Maybe their fathers abandoned them and they were raised by their mothers.
Maybe it’s penis envy.
Maybe the gun carriers will also begin wearing transparent codpieces instead of pants, cause the Founding Fathers said nothing about crotch bulges in the Constitution, so it must be freedom.
Now that we’re passing laws willy nilly that discrimination for religious reasons is the new rage, I expect the laws allowing concealed and open carry of weapons to make things interesting.
Packing heat (for all to see particularly) changes the terms of discourse and face to face interaction.
It makes me sullen.
You don’t want to make me sullen.
Tipping is advised:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/waitresses-carrying-guns/11833437/
Russell, maybe it’s the dominance behavior seen among chimpanzees.
Or maybe its like college girls on Spring Break or at Mardi Gras lifting their shirts to exhibit their watchamacallits.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing. Maybe their fathers abandoned them and they were raised by their mothers.
Maybe it’s penis envy.
Maybe the gun carriers will also begin wearing transparent codpieces instead of pants, cause the Founding Fathers said nothing about crotch bulges in the Constitution, so it must be freedom.
Now that we’re passing laws willy nilly that discrimination for religious reasons is the new rage, I expect the laws allowing concealed and open carry of weapons to make things interesting.
Packing heat (for all to see particularly) changes the terms of discourse and face to face interaction.
It makes me sullen.
You don’t want to make me sullen.
I think the Count is close. Open Carry has two possible uses.
First, it may disuade potential attackers, where carrying a hand gun concealed would not.
Second, it serves as a useful form of intimidation against anyone who is not similarly armed.
My suspicion is that the former will be used almost exclusively as justification when arguing for it. And the latter is actually the primary motivation for most advocates.
I think the Count is close. Open Carry has two possible uses.
First, it may disuade potential attackers, where carrying a hand gun concealed would not.
Second, it serves as a useful form of intimidation against anyone who is not similarly armed.
My suspicion is that the former will be used almost exclusively as justification when arguing for it. And the latter is actually the primary motivation for most advocates.
I think the Count is close. Open Carry has two possible uses.
First, it may disuade potential attackers, where carrying a hand gun concealed would not.
Second, it serves as a useful form of intimidation against anyone who is not similarly armed.
My suspicion is that the former will be used almost exclusively as justification when arguing for it. And the latter is actually the primary motivation for most advocates.
“What is the added value of carrying a handgun openly?”
If you have a license to carry concealed, and your gun shows for a moment, or even “prints”, (The shape shows through a shirt, for instance.) the police can charge you with open carry.
It doesn’t even have to have actually shown, the police can just claim it did, their word against yours.
But if both concealed AND open carry is legal, there’s nothing to charge you with. It removes an opportunity for police to harass somebody who carries a gun.
BTW, the inverse is an issue in states where license free open carry is the law, but concealed carry is licensed: Police will charge you with unlicensed concealed carry on the basis that your jacket swung across the holster for a moment, or you held a grocery bag in front of it.
“What is the added value of carrying a handgun openly?”
If you have a license to carry concealed, and your gun shows for a moment, or even “prints”, (The shape shows through a shirt, for instance.) the police can charge you with open carry.
It doesn’t even have to have actually shown, the police can just claim it did, their word against yours.
But if both concealed AND open carry is legal, there’s nothing to charge you with. It removes an opportunity for police to harass somebody who carries a gun.
BTW, the inverse is an issue in states where license free open carry is the law, but concealed carry is licensed: Police will charge you with unlicensed concealed carry on the basis that your jacket swung across the holster for a moment, or you held a grocery bag in front of it.
“What is the added value of carrying a handgun openly?”
If you have a license to carry concealed, and your gun shows for a moment, or even “prints”, (The shape shows through a shirt, for instance.) the police can charge you with open carry.
It doesn’t even have to have actually shown, the police can just claim it did, their word against yours.
But if both concealed AND open carry is legal, there’s nothing to charge you with. It removes an opportunity for police to harass somebody who carries a gun.
BTW, the inverse is an issue in states where license free open carry is the law, but concealed carry is licensed: Police will charge you with unlicensed concealed carry on the basis that your jacket swung across the holster for a moment, or you held a grocery bag in front of it.
And how often does that kind of police harrassment occur? Seriously, I have no idea and would be interested to know.
And how often does that kind of police harrassment occur? Seriously, I have no idea and would be interested to know.
And how often does that kind of police harrassment occur? Seriously, I have no idea and would be interested to know.
thanks for the replies.
are there any practical advantages other than reducing opportunities for cops to hassle you?
not that avoiding being hassled isn’t worthwhile, i’m just trying to understand what it’s all about.
open carry of handguns has been illegal in TX for well over 100 years, i’m trying to understand the motivation and the urgency of changing that now.
conversely, what is the argument, from a public interest point of view, for *not* allowing open carry of handguns? is it just to not freak people out?
these are not gotcha questions, i have no dog here. just trying to understand what and how other folks think.
thanks for the replies.
are there any practical advantages other than reducing opportunities for cops to hassle you?
not that avoiding being hassled isn’t worthwhile, i’m just trying to understand what it’s all about.
open carry of handguns has been illegal in TX for well over 100 years, i’m trying to understand the motivation and the urgency of changing that now.
conversely, what is the argument, from a public interest point of view, for *not* allowing open carry of handguns? is it just to not freak people out?
these are not gotcha questions, i have no dog here. just trying to understand what and how other folks think.
thanks for the replies.
are there any practical advantages other than reducing opportunities for cops to hassle you?
not that avoiding being hassled isn’t worthwhile, i’m just trying to understand what it’s all about.
open carry of handguns has been illegal in TX for well over 100 years, i’m trying to understand the motivation and the urgency of changing that now.
conversely, what is the argument, from a public interest point of view, for *not* allowing open carry of handguns? is it just to not freak people out?
these are not gotcha questions, i have no dog here. just trying to understand what and how other folks think.
Given the fact that the police in several states have acquired armored vehicles (up to mine resitant ones)* and consider the acquisition of drones (yet unarmed but with the option for the future) it would be only consequent to demand dropping the ban on RPGs and shoulder-fired SAMs (let’s leave rifle grenades, hand grenades and limpet mines out for the moment). If the 2A’s primary purpose is defense against oppression by government, then it must be effective against the first line of oppression, i.e. the police. Body armor is not fully resistant to all legal civilian firearms (so e.g. machine guns would need additional justification), police tanks would be, I presume**. So, where is the call and the campaign for legalisation of the proper defensive tools (outside the small circles that also consider the Davy Crockett covered due to being portable)?
Salami tactics, simple inconsistency or hypocrisy?
*although the feds currently try to reverse that.
**and I assume that downing drones by sniper rifle is not a generally applicable option.
Given the fact that the police in several states have acquired armored vehicles (up to mine resitant ones)* and consider the acquisition of drones (yet unarmed but with the option for the future) it would be only consequent to demand dropping the ban on RPGs and shoulder-fired SAMs (let’s leave rifle grenades, hand grenades and limpet mines out for the moment). If the 2A’s primary purpose is defense against oppression by government, then it must be effective against the first line of oppression, i.e. the police. Body armor is not fully resistant to all legal civilian firearms (so e.g. machine guns would need additional justification), police tanks would be, I presume**. So, where is the call and the campaign for legalisation of the proper defensive tools (outside the small circles that also consider the Davy Crockett covered due to being portable)?
Salami tactics, simple inconsistency or hypocrisy?
*although the feds currently try to reverse that.
**and I assume that downing drones by sniper rifle is not a generally applicable option.
Given the fact that the police in several states have acquired armored vehicles (up to mine resitant ones)* and consider the acquisition of drones (yet unarmed but with the option for the future) it would be only consequent to demand dropping the ban on RPGs and shoulder-fired SAMs (let’s leave rifle grenades, hand grenades and limpet mines out for the moment). If the 2A’s primary purpose is defense against oppression by government, then it must be effective against the first line of oppression, i.e. the police. Body armor is not fully resistant to all legal civilian firearms (so e.g. machine guns would need additional justification), police tanks would be, I presume**. So, where is the call and the campaign for legalisation of the proper defensive tools (outside the small circles that also consider the Davy Crockett covered due to being portable)?
Salami tactics, simple inconsistency or hypocrisy?
*although the feds currently try to reverse that.
**and I assume that downing drones by sniper rifle is not a generally applicable option.
I’m really skeptical of the notion that lots of people are getting hassled by police every day because their weapons get accidentally hidden or exposed momentarily. Here’s why. There are many many cases where gun owners act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured, and the penalties are….nothing. We as a society, very much including police officers and prosecutors, have decided that we’re not going to hold gun owners responsible for their stupidity. They get a blank check.
Did you purchase a tiny child’s rifle for your five your old? Did you leave it in the living room for him to play with. While it was loaded? And then killed his three year old sister? Well then, you are not a bad parent. You are not a negligent gun owner. You haven’t screwed up in any way that might give the state just cause to intervene. You certainly won’t go to jail or pay a fine. But the same state that decides “meh, dead kid, no biggie” is going to go crazy harassing some gun owner who is carrying a bag of groceries? Really? This passes the smell test for anyone?
I’m really skeptical of the notion that lots of people are getting hassled by police every day because their weapons get accidentally hidden or exposed momentarily. Here’s why. There are many many cases where gun owners act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured, and the penalties are….nothing. We as a society, very much including police officers and prosecutors, have decided that we’re not going to hold gun owners responsible for their stupidity. They get a blank check.
Did you purchase a tiny child’s rifle for your five your old? Did you leave it in the living room for him to play with. While it was loaded? And then killed his three year old sister? Well then, you are not a bad parent. You are not a negligent gun owner. You haven’t screwed up in any way that might give the state just cause to intervene. You certainly won’t go to jail or pay a fine. But the same state that decides “meh, dead kid, no biggie” is going to go crazy harassing some gun owner who is carrying a bag of groceries? Really? This passes the smell test for anyone?
I’m really skeptical of the notion that lots of people are getting hassled by police every day because their weapons get accidentally hidden or exposed momentarily. Here’s why. There are many many cases where gun owners act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured, and the penalties are….nothing. We as a society, very much including police officers and prosecutors, have decided that we’re not going to hold gun owners responsible for their stupidity. They get a blank check.
Did you purchase a tiny child’s rifle for your five your old? Did you leave it in the living room for him to play with. While it was loaded? And then killed his three year old sister? Well then, you are not a bad parent. You are not a negligent gun owner. You haven’t screwed up in any way that might give the state just cause to intervene. You certainly won’t go to jail or pay a fine. But the same state that decides “meh, dead kid, no biggie” is going to go crazy harassing some gun owner who is carrying a bag of groceries? Really? This passes the smell test for anyone?
I’m in favor of finding the prohibition against dueling unConstitutional.
There is hash to settle.
The first day that rule is overturned, I’ll be throwing several dozen cream pies shaped liked gauntlets.
Newt, Grover, Madame Coulter, line up your seconds now.
In the meantime, if a guy enters any establishment I’m in carrying a gun and I see it, I’m going to sneak up behind him and give him a wicked ear flick, just to test his reflexes.
The reason for carrying a weapon ——- Gunfighter Arithmetic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyMtN_aHC_8
I’m in favor of finding the prohibition against dueling unConstitutional.
There is hash to settle.
The first day that rule is overturned, I’ll be throwing several dozen cream pies shaped liked gauntlets.
Newt, Grover, Madame Coulter, line up your seconds now.
In the meantime, if a guy enters any establishment I’m in carrying a gun and I see it, I’m going to sneak up behind him and give him a wicked ear flick, just to test his reflexes.
The reason for carrying a weapon ——- Gunfighter Arithmetic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyMtN_aHC_8
I’m in favor of finding the prohibition against dueling unConstitutional.
There is hash to settle.
The first day that rule is overturned, I’ll be throwing several dozen cream pies shaped liked gauntlets.
Newt, Grover, Madame Coulter, line up your seconds now.
In the meantime, if a guy enters any establishment I’m in carrying a gun and I see it, I’m going to sneak up behind him and give him a wicked ear flick, just to test his reflexes.
The reason for carrying a weapon ——- Gunfighter Arithmetic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyMtN_aHC_8
I’m glad armed drunk drivers will no longer be harassed by police to show their permit to carry a weapon.
And, while we’re at it, and since rustling around in the glove compartment in the middle of the night trying to locate your car registration and proof of insurance while a cop is shining his flashlight in your bloodshot gin-loving eyes is such a hassle, let’s dispense with that paperwork too.
I’m glad armed drunk drivers will no longer be harassed by police to show their permit to carry a weapon.
And, while we’re at it, and since rustling around in the glove compartment in the middle of the night trying to locate your car registration and proof of insurance while a cop is shining his flashlight in your bloodshot gin-loving eyes is such a hassle, let’s dispense with that paperwork too.
I’m glad armed drunk drivers will no longer be harassed by police to show their permit to carry a weapon.
And, while we’re at it, and since rustling around in the glove compartment in the middle of the night trying to locate your car registration and proof of insurance while a cop is shining his flashlight in your bloodshot gin-loving eyes is such a hassle, let’s dispense with that paperwork too.
“And how often does that kind of police harrassment occur? Seriously, I have no idea and would be interested to know.”
Varies from place to place, as does any kind of police harassment. In some places, like the rural area I grew up in, police share local values, and have no problem at all with people carrying guns.
In other areas, police are gun controllers, mad as can be that they’re not technically allowed to arrest anybody who dares to carry a gun, and actively looking for any excuse to put such people in jail.
It certainly happens often enough to be an issue.
“And how often does that kind of police harrassment occur? Seriously, I have no idea and would be interested to know.”
Varies from place to place, as does any kind of police harassment. In some places, like the rural area I grew up in, police share local values, and have no problem at all with people carrying guns.
In other areas, police are gun controllers, mad as can be that they’re not technically allowed to arrest anybody who dares to carry a gun, and actively looking for any excuse to put such people in jail.
It certainly happens often enough to be an issue.
“And how often does that kind of police harrassment occur? Seriously, I have no idea and would be interested to know.”
Varies from place to place, as does any kind of police harassment. In some places, like the rural area I grew up in, police share local values, and have no problem at all with people carrying guns.
In other areas, police are gun controllers, mad as can be that they’re not technically allowed to arrest anybody who dares to carry a gun, and actively looking for any excuse to put such people in jail.
It certainly happens often enough to be an issue.
Thanks for the link, Brett. But what I was trying to find out is how often it happens.
I understand that, for some people, having anyone carrying stopped at all, even once a year nationwide, would constitute “often enough to be an issue.” For others, a couple dozen times a year nationwide would constitute “about the level of mistakes one would expect, consider that police are fallible human beings.”
And for some, even more would be required before it would rise to the point of being “a significant level of harrassment.”
So I’m not trying to establish what an appropriate threshold is. Just to find out how many instances we actually see. You know, data. Statistics.
Thanks for the link, Brett. But what I was trying to find out is how often it happens.
I understand that, for some people, having anyone carrying stopped at all, even once a year nationwide, would constitute “often enough to be an issue.” For others, a couple dozen times a year nationwide would constitute “about the level of mistakes one would expect, consider that police are fallible human beings.”
And for some, even more would be required before it would rise to the point of being “a significant level of harrassment.”
So I’m not trying to establish what an appropriate threshold is. Just to find out how many instances we actually see. You know, data. Statistics.
Thanks for the link, Brett. But what I was trying to find out is how often it happens.
I understand that, for some people, having anyone carrying stopped at all, even once a year nationwide, would constitute “often enough to be an issue.” For others, a couple dozen times a year nationwide would constitute “about the level of mistakes one would expect, consider that police are fallible human beings.”
And for some, even more would be required before it would rise to the point of being “a significant level of harrassment.”
So I’m not trying to establish what an appropriate threshold is. Just to find out how many instances we actually see. You know, data. Statistics.
I appreciate your reply here, but I would also say that the hits from the search you link to cover a variety of situations and circumstances. I.e., they don’t all, or even mostly, describe incidents where cops hassled somebody for carrying openly when they were really carrying concealed, or vice versa.
It seemed like most of the cases where cops hassled somebody for carrying, in whatever mode, was in places where it was completely legal to do so already. So I guess I’m unclear on how making it legal is a remedy for that.
I have to admit that the desire to carry a firearm through normal daily life puzzles me. A lot of people seem to be really afraid, of things that just don’t seem particularly likely to happen, ever, which doesn’t really seem congruent with my experience of normal life. I live in a very safe place now, but I’ve lived in, and spent lots of time in, so-called “dangerous” places, and I don’t think I’ve ever been in a situation where I wished I had a gun with me.
I’m not judging people who want to carry firearms, I’m just saying I don’t get it. It doesn’t resonate with me. Guns aren’t part of my world, and the whole unending parade of controversies about them basically mystifies me.
Carry open is OK, but concealed is not. Or, vice versa. Or, you can carry a rifle but not a handgun. To me, it all seems like some weird argument about some obscure theological topic, or maybe the rules for cricket.
I have a very different understanding of what the 2nd A is about than most gun advocates also, so that factors into it as well.
Long story short, the degree to which people are invested in carrying handguns openly, when they can already carry them concealed, and also carry other kinds of firearms openly, and it’s been that way for over 100 years, is just really puzzling.
To me.
Everybody’s got their thing.
I appreciate your reply here, but I would also say that the hits from the search you link to cover a variety of situations and circumstances. I.e., they don’t all, or even mostly, describe incidents where cops hassled somebody for carrying openly when they were really carrying concealed, or vice versa.
It seemed like most of the cases where cops hassled somebody for carrying, in whatever mode, was in places where it was completely legal to do so already. So I guess I’m unclear on how making it legal is a remedy for that.
I have to admit that the desire to carry a firearm through normal daily life puzzles me. A lot of people seem to be really afraid, of things that just don’t seem particularly likely to happen, ever, which doesn’t really seem congruent with my experience of normal life. I live in a very safe place now, but I’ve lived in, and spent lots of time in, so-called “dangerous” places, and I don’t think I’ve ever been in a situation where I wished I had a gun with me.
I’m not judging people who want to carry firearms, I’m just saying I don’t get it. It doesn’t resonate with me. Guns aren’t part of my world, and the whole unending parade of controversies about them basically mystifies me.
Carry open is OK, but concealed is not. Or, vice versa. Or, you can carry a rifle but not a handgun. To me, it all seems like some weird argument about some obscure theological topic, or maybe the rules for cricket.
I have a very different understanding of what the 2nd A is about than most gun advocates also, so that factors into it as well.
Long story short, the degree to which people are invested in carrying handguns openly, when they can already carry them concealed, and also carry other kinds of firearms openly, and it’s been that way for over 100 years, is just really puzzling.
To me.
Everybody’s got their thing.
I appreciate your reply here, but I would also say that the hits from the search you link to cover a variety of situations and circumstances. I.e., they don’t all, or even mostly, describe incidents where cops hassled somebody for carrying openly when they were really carrying concealed, or vice versa.
It seemed like most of the cases where cops hassled somebody for carrying, in whatever mode, was in places where it was completely legal to do so already. So I guess I’m unclear on how making it legal is a remedy for that.
I have to admit that the desire to carry a firearm through normal daily life puzzles me. A lot of people seem to be really afraid, of things that just don’t seem particularly likely to happen, ever, which doesn’t really seem congruent with my experience of normal life. I live in a very safe place now, but I’ve lived in, and spent lots of time in, so-called “dangerous” places, and I don’t think I’ve ever been in a situation where I wished I had a gun with me.
I’m not judging people who want to carry firearms, I’m just saying I don’t get it. It doesn’t resonate with me. Guns aren’t part of my world, and the whole unending parade of controversies about them basically mystifies me.
Carry open is OK, but concealed is not. Or, vice versa. Or, you can carry a rifle but not a handgun. To me, it all seems like some weird argument about some obscure theological topic, or maybe the rules for cricket.
I have a very different understanding of what the 2nd A is about than most gun advocates also, so that factors into it as well.
Long story short, the degree to which people are invested in carrying handguns openly, when they can already carry them concealed, and also carry other kinds of firearms openly, and it’s been that way for over 100 years, is just really puzzling.
To me.
Everybody’s got their thing.
“It seemed like most of the cases where cops hassled somebody for carrying, in whatever mode, was in places where it was completely legal to do so already. So I guess I’m unclear on how making it legal is a remedy for that.”
In places where it’s legal to carry openly, but not concealed, police will claim that somebody carrying openly was concealing the gun. In places where it’s legal to carry concealed, but not openly, police will claim that somebody carrying concealed exposed their gun.
The utility of having both legal, is that it denies the police an easy excuse to hassle somebody carrying a gun. They still can hassle you, but it’s more of a reach, so they’re less likely to.
I don’t have any numbers on the over-all frequency. What I know is that, in some places, they don’t do it, and in other places they do it at the least excuse.
Oh, and one of the reasons people want to carry openly? It’s a form of desensitization therapy for the public: You hide guns carried by peaceful people from view, the only guns people are going to see are criminals on TV and in movies. A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
It’s understandable that gun controllers really dislike open carry, for exactly that reason.
“It seemed like most of the cases where cops hassled somebody for carrying, in whatever mode, was in places where it was completely legal to do so already. So I guess I’m unclear on how making it legal is a remedy for that.”
In places where it’s legal to carry openly, but not concealed, police will claim that somebody carrying openly was concealing the gun. In places where it’s legal to carry concealed, but not openly, police will claim that somebody carrying concealed exposed their gun.
The utility of having both legal, is that it denies the police an easy excuse to hassle somebody carrying a gun. They still can hassle you, but it’s more of a reach, so they’re less likely to.
I don’t have any numbers on the over-all frequency. What I know is that, in some places, they don’t do it, and in other places they do it at the least excuse.
Oh, and one of the reasons people want to carry openly? It’s a form of desensitization therapy for the public: You hide guns carried by peaceful people from view, the only guns people are going to see are criminals on TV and in movies. A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
It’s understandable that gun controllers really dislike open carry, for exactly that reason.
“It seemed like most of the cases where cops hassled somebody for carrying, in whatever mode, was in places where it was completely legal to do so already. So I guess I’m unclear on how making it legal is a remedy for that.”
In places where it’s legal to carry openly, but not concealed, police will claim that somebody carrying openly was concealing the gun. In places where it’s legal to carry concealed, but not openly, police will claim that somebody carrying concealed exposed their gun.
The utility of having both legal, is that it denies the police an easy excuse to hassle somebody carrying a gun. They still can hassle you, but it’s more of a reach, so they’re less likely to.
I don’t have any numbers on the over-all frequency. What I know is that, in some places, they don’t do it, and in other places they do it at the least excuse.
Oh, and one of the reasons people want to carry openly? It’s a form of desensitization therapy for the public: You hide guns carried by peaceful people from view, the only guns people are going to see are criminals on TV and in movies. A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
It’s understandable that gun controllers really dislike open carry, for exactly that reason.
I have to say that I’ve pretty much given up on the debate about guns, just because I live in a place that people want them, and they’re inevitable.
That said, I still get frustrated when I hear people discussing guns. For example, russell says: “I’m not judging people who want to carry firearms, I’m just saying I don’t get it.”
Well, I judge them. They want to be ready to hurt somebody very badly if they go somewhere (presumably out of their homes, since they’re “carrying”) where they feel threatened. Ummm, isn’t that what the cops are for?
So, whatever, people who support “carrying” and “concealing” and “open carry” live among us in my jurisdiction, in large numbers. But still, yes, I judge them. It’s dangerous for people who are apparently very nervous about their fellow human beings to carry lethal weapons. This isn’t a great way to solve problems.
People who think like me have lost this battle, but once in awhile, I just have to say something.
I have to say that I’ve pretty much given up on the debate about guns, just because I live in a place that people want them, and they’re inevitable.
That said, I still get frustrated when I hear people discussing guns. For example, russell says: “I’m not judging people who want to carry firearms, I’m just saying I don’t get it.”
Well, I judge them. They want to be ready to hurt somebody very badly if they go somewhere (presumably out of their homes, since they’re “carrying”) where they feel threatened. Ummm, isn’t that what the cops are for?
So, whatever, people who support “carrying” and “concealing” and “open carry” live among us in my jurisdiction, in large numbers. But still, yes, I judge them. It’s dangerous for people who are apparently very nervous about their fellow human beings to carry lethal weapons. This isn’t a great way to solve problems.
People who think like me have lost this battle, but once in awhile, I just have to say something.
I have to say that I’ve pretty much given up on the debate about guns, just because I live in a place that people want them, and they’re inevitable.
That said, I still get frustrated when I hear people discussing guns. For example, russell says: “I’m not judging people who want to carry firearms, I’m just saying I don’t get it.”
Well, I judge them. They want to be ready to hurt somebody very badly if they go somewhere (presumably out of their homes, since they’re “carrying”) where they feel threatened. Ummm, isn’t that what the cops are for?
So, whatever, people who support “carrying” and “concealing” and “open carry” live among us in my jurisdiction, in large numbers. But still, yes, I judge them. It’s dangerous for people who are apparently very nervous about their fellow human beings to carry lethal weapons. This isn’t a great way to solve problems.
People who think like me have lost this battle, but once in awhile, I just have to say something.
Well, I think that’s part of the concern: the people supporting carrying guns routinely are also (in my, admittedly limited, observation) people who also distrust government in general** — which tends to include distrusting the police. So for them no, cops are not for protecting them if they feel threatened. Because they frequently see the police as part of what they feel threatened by.
** Note that the converse is not generally true. That is, there are lots of people who distrust the government, but not to the extent of feeling the need to be armed routinely for self protection.
Well, I think that’s part of the concern: the people supporting carrying guns routinely are also (in my, admittedly limited, observation) people who also distrust government in general** — which tends to include distrusting the police. So for them no, cops are not for protecting them if they feel threatened. Because they frequently see the police as part of what they feel threatened by.
** Note that the converse is not generally true. That is, there are lots of people who distrust the government, but not to the extent of feeling the need to be armed routinely for self protection.
Well, I think that’s part of the concern: the people supporting carrying guns routinely are also (in my, admittedly limited, observation) people who also distrust government in general** — which tends to include distrusting the police. So for them no, cops are not for protecting them if they feel threatened. Because they frequently see the police as part of what they feel threatened by.
** Note that the converse is not generally true. That is, there are lots of people who distrust the government, but not to the extent of feeling the need to be armed routinely for self protection.
“Well, I judge them. They want to be ready to hurt somebody very badly if they go somewhere (presumably out of their homes, since they’re “carrying”) where they feel threatened. Ummm, isn’t that what the cops are for?”
No, rather explicitly they’re not there to protect you. In fact, there’s a Supreme court ruling that’s right on point.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Like they say, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Under some circumstances, I’m ENTITLED to hurt somebody very badly. That being the case, why shouldn’t I be able?
Because you’d rather the police avenge me after the fact, instead of me defending myself?
….
This whole debate has a surreal feel to it. Way back when Florida kicked off the concealed carry reform movement, and opponents screamed there’d be blood running in the streets, and shootouts over every fender-bender, there was some basis for a debate. But that was nearly three decades ago!
Today we know that letting people carry concealed weapons doesn’t turn fender-benders into shootouts, doesn’t make blood run in the streets. The facts are in.
So, what’s the basis for telling anybody, an adult without a criminal record, that they can’t carry a gun, either concealed or openly? Three decades say letting them won’t effect the crime rate negatively.
Because somebody might be made nervous by it? That’s no basis for telling people they can’t do something that’s been demonstrated to be harmless!
“Well, I judge them. They want to be ready to hurt somebody very badly if they go somewhere (presumably out of their homes, since they’re “carrying”) where they feel threatened. Ummm, isn’t that what the cops are for?”
No, rather explicitly they’re not there to protect you. In fact, there’s a Supreme court ruling that’s right on point.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Like they say, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Under some circumstances, I’m ENTITLED to hurt somebody very badly. That being the case, why shouldn’t I be able?
Because you’d rather the police avenge me after the fact, instead of me defending myself?
….
This whole debate has a surreal feel to it. Way back when Florida kicked off the concealed carry reform movement, and opponents screamed there’d be blood running in the streets, and shootouts over every fender-bender, there was some basis for a debate. But that was nearly three decades ago!
Today we know that letting people carry concealed weapons doesn’t turn fender-benders into shootouts, doesn’t make blood run in the streets. The facts are in.
So, what’s the basis for telling anybody, an adult without a criminal record, that they can’t carry a gun, either concealed or openly? Three decades say letting them won’t effect the crime rate negatively.
Because somebody might be made nervous by it? That’s no basis for telling people they can’t do something that’s been demonstrated to be harmless!
“Well, I judge them. They want to be ready to hurt somebody very badly if they go somewhere (presumably out of their homes, since they’re “carrying”) where they feel threatened. Ummm, isn’t that what the cops are for?”
No, rather explicitly they’re not there to protect you. In fact, there’s a Supreme court ruling that’s right on point.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Like they say, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Under some circumstances, I’m ENTITLED to hurt somebody very badly. That being the case, why shouldn’t I be able?
Because you’d rather the police avenge me after the fact, instead of me defending myself?
….
This whole debate has a surreal feel to it. Way back when Florida kicked off the concealed carry reform movement, and opponents screamed there’d be blood running in the streets, and shootouts over every fender-bender, there was some basis for a debate. But that was nearly three decades ago!
Today we know that letting people carry concealed weapons doesn’t turn fender-benders into shootouts, doesn’t make blood run in the streets. The facts are in.
So, what’s the basis for telling anybody, an adult without a criminal record, that they can’t carry a gun, either concealed or openly? Three decades say letting them won’t effect the crime rate negatively.
Because somebody might be made nervous by it? That’s no basis for telling people they can’t do something that’s been demonstrated to be harmless!
“Oh, and one of the reasons people want to carry openly? It’s a form of desensitization therapy for the public: You hide guns carried by peaceful people from view, the only guns people are going to see are criminals on TV and in movies. A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.”
The Ministry of Silly Walks, or maybe Putin’s face men who he sends out to explain the presence of Russian military convoys on the roadways of the Ukraine, could use your expertise as part of their government outreach to the public.
First of all, if circumstances are so peaceful, why not openly carry dildos in public instead of guns as a “form of desensitization therapy for the public”.
I mean, if you’re going to couch this crap in terms that make it sound like you are doing us a favor. And spare us the deracinated, empty, but soothing language of the new Age psychotherapy self-help movement, Dr. Joyce Brothers.
Is this the same public whose religious convictions are so highly “phobic” about baking cakes for gay weddings or providing birth control in company health plans that we need to carve out exceptions especially for them?
In Baghdad and Kabul, the public markets tend to fill up with people pretty soon after car bombings that kill dozens, because, what the hell, what are you gonna do, the shopping needs to be done.
I’ve been in third world cities where you can hear gunfire in the distance all night, and sure, you can get use to anything and eventually you’ll learn to roll over and go to sleep.
I guess that was a “form of desensitization therapy” too.
I’ve never read a paragraph anywhere anytime on any subject whatsoever in which every word, including “oh” was marinated in such a concentrated solution of delusional bullsh*t.
I’m going to save it for some future use, it is so deliciously, soothingly patronizing.
Did you keep a straight face when you wrote that?
Did you lean back in your chair just before you hit the “Post” button and think, “Geez, if they buy this bushwah, I may have have invented a whole new language!”
Did you want to prop our eyelids open with toothpicks too so we can be conditioned a little faster to your program, Svengali?
Maybe you could saw me in half too once I’m in the mood.
Here, watch this, Spock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh7zOeOS_U
Or, if you are old school:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpNdzSxXw-I
This too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GahwWwpuA4
But maybe one day, I’ll join you, in full desensitization. They say the secret to enjoying anal sex, is to relax. Relax …. relax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFXIPdseQA
“Oh, and one of the reasons people want to carry openly? It’s a form of desensitization therapy for the public: You hide guns carried by peaceful people from view, the only guns people are going to see are criminals on TV and in movies. A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.”
The Ministry of Silly Walks, or maybe Putin’s face men who he sends out to explain the presence of Russian military convoys on the roadways of the Ukraine, could use your expertise as part of their government outreach to the public.
First of all, if circumstances are so peaceful, why not openly carry dildos in public instead of guns as a “form of desensitization therapy for the public”.
I mean, if you’re going to couch this crap in terms that make it sound like you are doing us a favor. And spare us the deracinated, empty, but soothing language of the new Age psychotherapy self-help movement, Dr. Joyce Brothers.
Is this the same public whose religious convictions are so highly “phobic” about baking cakes for gay weddings or providing birth control in company health plans that we need to carve out exceptions especially for them?
In Baghdad and Kabul, the public markets tend to fill up with people pretty soon after car bombings that kill dozens, because, what the hell, what are you gonna do, the shopping needs to be done.
I’ve been in third world cities where you can hear gunfire in the distance all night, and sure, you can get use to anything and eventually you’ll learn to roll over and go to sleep.
I guess that was a “form of desensitization therapy” too.
I’ve never read a paragraph anywhere anytime on any subject whatsoever in which every word, including “oh” was marinated in such a concentrated solution of delusional bullsh*t.
I’m going to save it for some future use, it is so deliciously, soothingly patronizing.
Did you keep a straight face when you wrote that?
Did you lean back in your chair just before you hit the “Post” button and think, “Geez, if they buy this bushwah, I may have have invented a whole new language!”
Did you want to prop our eyelids open with toothpicks too so we can be conditioned a little faster to your program, Svengali?
Maybe you could saw me in half too once I’m in the mood.
Here, watch this, Spock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh7zOeOS_U
Or, if you are old school:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpNdzSxXw-I
This too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GahwWwpuA4
But maybe one day, I’ll join you, in full desensitization. They say the secret to enjoying anal sex, is to relax. Relax …. relax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFXIPdseQA
“Oh, and one of the reasons people want to carry openly? It’s a form of desensitization therapy for the public: You hide guns carried by peaceful people from view, the only guns people are going to see are criminals on TV and in movies. A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.”
The Ministry of Silly Walks, or maybe Putin’s face men who he sends out to explain the presence of Russian military convoys on the roadways of the Ukraine, could use your expertise as part of their government outreach to the public.
First of all, if circumstances are so peaceful, why not openly carry dildos in public instead of guns as a “form of desensitization therapy for the public”.
I mean, if you’re going to couch this crap in terms that make it sound like you are doing us a favor. And spare us the deracinated, empty, but soothing language of the new Age psychotherapy self-help movement, Dr. Joyce Brothers.
Is this the same public whose religious convictions are so highly “phobic” about baking cakes for gay weddings or providing birth control in company health plans that we need to carve out exceptions especially for them?
In Baghdad and Kabul, the public markets tend to fill up with people pretty soon after car bombings that kill dozens, because, what the hell, what are you gonna do, the shopping needs to be done.
I’ve been in third world cities where you can hear gunfire in the distance all night, and sure, you can get use to anything and eventually you’ll learn to roll over and go to sleep.
I guess that was a “form of desensitization therapy” too.
I’ve never read a paragraph anywhere anytime on any subject whatsoever in which every word, including “oh” was marinated in such a concentrated solution of delusional bullsh*t.
I’m going to save it for some future use, it is so deliciously, soothingly patronizing.
Did you keep a straight face when you wrote that?
Did you lean back in your chair just before you hit the “Post” button and think, “Geez, if they buy this bushwah, I may have have invented a whole new language!”
Did you want to prop our eyelids open with toothpicks too so we can be conditioned a little faster to your program, Svengali?
Maybe you could saw me in half too once I’m in the mood.
Here, watch this, Spock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh7zOeOS_U
Or, if you are old school:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpNdzSxXw-I
This too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GahwWwpuA4
But maybe one day, I’ll join you, in full desensitization. They say the secret to enjoying anal sex, is to relax. Relax …. relax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFXIPdseQA
“Today we know that letting people carry concealed weapons doesn’t turn fender-benders into shootouts, doesn’t make blood run in the streets. The facts are in.”
Well then, give us some.
Your man George Zimmerman, the quintessence of facticity seems to pop up every six months or so to prove you wrong.
Here’s a fact:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491.html
“Today we know that letting people carry concealed weapons doesn’t turn fender-benders into shootouts, doesn’t make blood run in the streets. The facts are in.”
Well then, give us some.
Your man George Zimmerman, the quintessence of facticity seems to pop up every six months or so to prove you wrong.
Here’s a fact:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491.html
“Today we know that letting people carry concealed weapons doesn’t turn fender-benders into shootouts, doesn’t make blood run in the streets. The facts are in.”
Well then, give us some.
Your man George Zimmerman, the quintessence of facticity seems to pop up every six months or so to prove you wrong.
Here’s a fact:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491.html
A couple people, I hear, have died of being hit by meteors. I don’t wear a hard hat when I walk the dog. Man bites dog stories are a lousy basis for public policy.
A couple people, I hear, have died of being hit by meteors. I don’t wear a hard hat when I walk the dog. Man bites dog stories are a lousy basis for public policy.
A couple people, I hear, have died of being hit by meteors. I don’t wear a hard hat when I walk the dog. Man bites dog stories are a lousy basis for public policy.
So open carry meteors.
You don’t wear a hardhat because your head is hard enough.
So open carry meteors.
You don’t wear a hardhat because your head is hard enough.
So open carry meteors.
You don’t wear a hardhat because your head is hard enough.
The arguments for open and concealed carry of weapons in public are fully based on man bites dog stories.
Except for women who have been raped, I’ll wager that very very few of the gun lovers have ever had occasion in their lives to defend themselves with a gun, either in public or in their homes.
And yet they argue for it like they were bitten by a rabid dog.
The only use they will find for the gun, given the facts about death by gun in this country and elsewhere, is to shoot themselves either on purpose or by accident.
The arguments for open and concealed carry of weapons in public are fully based on man bites dog stories.
Except for women who have been raped, I’ll wager that very very few of the gun lovers have ever had occasion in their lives to defend themselves with a gun, either in public or in their homes.
And yet they argue for it like they were bitten by a rabid dog.
The only use they will find for the gun, given the facts about death by gun in this country and elsewhere, is to shoot themselves either on purpose or by accident.
The arguments for open and concealed carry of weapons in public are fully based on man bites dog stories.
Except for women who have been raped, I’ll wager that very very few of the gun lovers have ever had occasion in their lives to defend themselves with a gun, either in public or in their homes.
And yet they argue for it like they were bitten by a rabid dog.
The only use they will find for the gun, given the facts about death by gun in this country and elsewhere, is to shoot themselves either on purpose or by accident.
How are the stories of the occasional (apparently very rare) cases of police hassling individuals carrying guns different from the (apparently almost equally rare) cases of individuals like Zimmerman using the guns they carry to shoot someone who was no kind of threat at all? I mean, why is one a serious problem and affront, while the other is simply an occasional rare exception?
How are the stories of the occasional (apparently very rare) cases of police hassling individuals carrying guns different from the (apparently almost equally rare) cases of individuals like Zimmerman using the guns they carry to shoot someone who was no kind of threat at all? I mean, why is one a serious problem and affront, while the other is simply an occasional rare exception?
How are the stories of the occasional (apparently very rare) cases of police hassling individuals carrying guns different from the (apparently almost equally rare) cases of individuals like Zimmerman using the guns they carry to shoot someone who was no kind of threat at all? I mean, why is one a serious problem and affront, while the other is simply an occasional rare exception?
By the way, I have a hard head too, Brett, which is why we get along so well.
Have a good rest of your weekend.
I’m going to dodge the asteroids and run down the street to see if I can get myself shot at the dive bar nearby, so at least one of us has some facts for the next go-around.
By the way, I have a hard head too, Brett, which is why we get along so well.
Have a good rest of your weekend.
I’m going to dodge the asteroids and run down the street to see if I can get myself shot at the dive bar nearby, so at least one of us has some facts for the next go-around.
By the way, I have a hard head too, Brett, which is why we get along so well.
Have a good rest of your weekend.
I’m going to dodge the asteroids and run down the street to see if I can get myself shot at the dive bar nearby, so at least one of us has some facts for the next go-around.
By the way, I have a hard head too, Brett, which is why we get along so well.
Have a good rest of your weekend.
I’m going to dodge the asteroids and run down the street to see if I can get myself shot at the dive bar nearby, so at least one of us has some facts for the next go-around.
By the way, I have a hard head too, Brett, which is why we get along so well.
Have a good rest of your weekend.
I’m going to dodge the asteroids and run down the street to see if I can get myself shot at the dive bar nearby, so at least one of us has some facts for the next go-around.
By the way, I have a hard head too, Brett, which is why we get along so well.
Have a good rest of your weekend.
I’m going to dodge the asteroids and run down the street to see if I can get myself shot at the dive bar nearby, so at least one of us has some facts for the next go-around.
A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
Briefly, this is really a bad idea.
The reason people who are uncomfortable around guns are uncomfortable around guns is because guns are really f***ing dangerous. Other than maybe cars, they are hands-down the most dangerous thing that is commonly owned, and unlike cars they have no purpose or use other than to be dangerous.
That is why people who are uncomfortable around guns are uncomfortable around guns.
It’s not a phobia, it’s a fairly natural and understandable reaction to the presence of an extremely dangerous object, and in the case of open carry, it’s visibly in the possession of somebody who you don’t know from Adam.
Use your freaking head, please.
If it’s part of the culture where you live for people to openly carry firearms as they go about their daily life, fine with me. Not my hash to settle, I got enough on my plate without worrying about life in Tarrant County TX.
If it’s not part of the culture where you live, all you are going to do by open carrying to Make Your Very Important Point is freak a lot of people out, piss many of them the hell off, and convince a hell of a lot of people that you’re an ass.
First rule of persuading people that you’re not an asshole: don’t act like an asshole. Imposing stuff on people who don’t want it is acting like an asshole.
You of all people should grok that concept.
To reiterate – if you’re interested in open carrying so that you can make all of the people who aren’t comfortable around guns magically comfortable around guns, IT’S NOT GOING TO WORK. Not only is it not going to work, you’re going to be perceived as a dangerous lunatic asshole.
Just a word to the wise. Take it or leave it, that’s on you, it’s not my problem. I live in the people’s republic, it’s actually legal to open carry here, but most people don’t, because while we’re not all that polite, and many of us are assholes, we aren’t really into Making Very Important Points about stuff like this, so it generally doesn’t come up.
To sapient’s point, there actually are people who live in dangerous neighborhoods, or who work or travel in dangerous places, or who have to handle large sums of cash or other valuables, and who find it useful to carry a firearm. That’s not intended to contest your larger point, or argue in any way with your dislike of widespread carrying of guns. I don’t really judge folks who like guns, neither do I judge folks who hate them. They are dangerous, and they exist to project force and cause harm.
A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
Briefly, this is really a bad idea.
The reason people who are uncomfortable around guns are uncomfortable around guns is because guns are really f***ing dangerous. Other than maybe cars, they are hands-down the most dangerous thing that is commonly owned, and unlike cars they have no purpose or use other than to be dangerous.
That is why people who are uncomfortable around guns are uncomfortable around guns.
It’s not a phobia, it’s a fairly natural and understandable reaction to the presence of an extremely dangerous object, and in the case of open carry, it’s visibly in the possession of somebody who you don’t know from Adam.
Use your freaking head, please.
If it’s part of the culture where you live for people to openly carry firearms as they go about their daily life, fine with me. Not my hash to settle, I got enough on my plate without worrying about life in Tarrant County TX.
If it’s not part of the culture where you live, all you are going to do by open carrying to Make Your Very Important Point is freak a lot of people out, piss many of them the hell off, and convince a hell of a lot of people that you’re an ass.
First rule of persuading people that you’re not an asshole: don’t act like an asshole. Imposing stuff on people who don’t want it is acting like an asshole.
You of all people should grok that concept.
To reiterate – if you’re interested in open carrying so that you can make all of the people who aren’t comfortable around guns magically comfortable around guns, IT’S NOT GOING TO WORK. Not only is it not going to work, you’re going to be perceived as a dangerous lunatic asshole.
Just a word to the wise. Take it or leave it, that’s on you, it’s not my problem. I live in the people’s republic, it’s actually legal to open carry here, but most people don’t, because while we’re not all that polite, and many of us are assholes, we aren’t really into Making Very Important Points about stuff like this, so it generally doesn’t come up.
To sapient’s point, there actually are people who live in dangerous neighborhoods, or who work or travel in dangerous places, or who have to handle large sums of cash or other valuables, and who find it useful to carry a firearm. That’s not intended to contest your larger point, or argue in any way with your dislike of widespread carrying of guns. I don’t really judge folks who like guns, neither do I judge folks who hate them. They are dangerous, and they exist to project force and cause harm.
A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
Briefly, this is really a bad idea.
The reason people who are uncomfortable around guns are uncomfortable around guns is because guns are really f***ing dangerous. Other than maybe cars, they are hands-down the most dangerous thing that is commonly owned, and unlike cars they have no purpose or use other than to be dangerous.
That is why people who are uncomfortable around guns are uncomfortable around guns.
It’s not a phobia, it’s a fairly natural and understandable reaction to the presence of an extremely dangerous object, and in the case of open carry, it’s visibly in the possession of somebody who you don’t know from Adam.
Use your freaking head, please.
If it’s part of the culture where you live for people to openly carry firearms as they go about their daily life, fine with me. Not my hash to settle, I got enough on my plate without worrying about life in Tarrant County TX.
If it’s not part of the culture where you live, all you are going to do by open carrying to Make Your Very Important Point is freak a lot of people out, piss many of them the hell off, and convince a hell of a lot of people that you’re an ass.
First rule of persuading people that you’re not an asshole: don’t act like an asshole. Imposing stuff on people who don’t want it is acting like an asshole.
You of all people should grok that concept.
To reiterate – if you’re interested in open carrying so that you can make all of the people who aren’t comfortable around guns magically comfortable around guns, IT’S NOT GOING TO WORK. Not only is it not going to work, you’re going to be perceived as a dangerous lunatic asshole.
Just a word to the wise. Take it or leave it, that’s on you, it’s not my problem. I live in the people’s republic, it’s actually legal to open carry here, but most people don’t, because while we’re not all that polite, and many of us are assholes, we aren’t really into Making Very Important Points about stuff like this, so it generally doesn’t come up.
To sapient’s point, there actually are people who live in dangerous neighborhoods, or who work or travel in dangerous places, or who have to handle large sums of cash or other valuables, and who find it useful to carry a firearm. That’s not intended to contest your larger point, or argue in any way with your dislike of widespread carrying of guns. I don’t really judge folks who like guns, neither do I judge folks who hate them. They are dangerous, and they exist to project force and cause harm.
There are many many cases where gun owners act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured, and the penalties are….nothing.
In most cases, when this recklessness and negligence occurs, they’re wearing a uniform.
There are many many cases where gun owners act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured, and the penalties are….nothing.
In most cases, when this recklessness and negligence occurs, they’re wearing a uniform.
There are many many cases where gun owners act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured, and the penalties are….nothing.
In most cases, when this recklessness and negligence occurs, they’re wearing a uniform.
A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
Seriously, I’m kind of gobsmacked by this. It may be the stupidest f***ing thing I’ve ever read in a blog post.
It’s understandable that people who aren’t all that comfortable around guns think gun advocates are dangerous flaming asshole lunatic nut jobs, for exactly that reason.
I think people should be much more comfortable listening to free jazz. I’m going to hire Cecil Taylor, install him on the back of a flat bed truck with a great big PA system, and drive up and down the streets of your town, until you understand exactly how wonderful free jazz is.
Imagine that, except it could kill you.
Maybe we don’t need folks like the Bradys, maybe gun advocacy will completely and utterly alienate the public at large through their own dunderheaded stupidity.
Seriously, WTF are you thinking.
A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
Seriously, I’m kind of gobsmacked by this. It may be the stupidest f***ing thing I’ve ever read in a blog post.
It’s understandable that people who aren’t all that comfortable around guns think gun advocates are dangerous flaming asshole lunatic nut jobs, for exactly that reason.
I think people should be much more comfortable listening to free jazz. I’m going to hire Cecil Taylor, install him on the back of a flat bed truck with a great big PA system, and drive up and down the streets of your town, until you understand exactly how wonderful free jazz is.
Imagine that, except it could kill you.
Maybe we don’t need folks like the Bradys, maybe gun advocacy will completely and utterly alienate the public at large through their own dunderheaded stupidity.
Seriously, WTF are you thinking.
A lot of gun owners want to carry openly to counter that, expose people who might be conditioned to be phobic about guns to the sight of them under peaceful circumstances, so they’ll get over the phobia.
Seriously, I’m kind of gobsmacked by this. It may be the stupidest f***ing thing I’ve ever read in a blog post.
It’s understandable that people who aren’t all that comfortable around guns think gun advocates are dangerous flaming asshole lunatic nut jobs, for exactly that reason.
I think people should be much more comfortable listening to free jazz. I’m going to hire Cecil Taylor, install him on the back of a flat bed truck with a great big PA system, and drive up and down the streets of your town, until you understand exactly how wonderful free jazz is.
Imagine that, except it could kill you.
Maybe we don’t need folks like the Bradys, maybe gun advocacy will completely and utterly alienate the public at large through their own dunderheaded stupidity.
Seriously, WTF are you thinking.
In most cases, when this recklessness and negligence occurs, they’re wearing a uniform.
Charles, no doubt you have data to back up this assertion. I don’t doubt for a minute that you do. But for the benefit of those of us who do not perhaps have access to your sources, could you share them with us?
In most cases, when this recklessness and negligence occurs, they’re wearing a uniform.
Charles, no doubt you have data to back up this assertion. I don’t doubt for a minute that you do. But for the benefit of those of us who do not perhaps have access to your sources, could you share them with us?
In most cases, when this recklessness and negligence occurs, they’re wearing a uniform.
Charles, no doubt you have data to back up this assertion. I don’t doubt for a minute that you do. But for the benefit of those of us who do not perhaps have access to your sources, could you share them with us?
Wearing a gun in public IS a uniform.
I’d like to see the facts regarding civilians causing the deaths of others, probably their own children, through the negligent use of firearms compared to the deaths of others caused by the negligent use of firearms carried by law enforcement.
Whatever the numbers, taking away their guns is a better answer than giving them more guns.
I’d be happy to entirely disarm the police, except for what they keep in the armory.
Russell, not jazz for God’s sake. As Homer Simpson said, that stuff sounds like they just made it up as they go along.
Wearing a gun in public IS a uniform.
I’d like to see the facts regarding civilians causing the deaths of others, probably their own children, through the negligent use of firearms compared to the deaths of others caused by the negligent use of firearms carried by law enforcement.
Whatever the numbers, taking away their guns is a better answer than giving them more guns.
I’d be happy to entirely disarm the police, except for what they keep in the armory.
Russell, not jazz for God’s sake. As Homer Simpson said, that stuff sounds like they just made it up as they go along.
Wearing a gun in public IS a uniform.
I’d like to see the facts regarding civilians causing the deaths of others, probably their own children, through the negligent use of firearms compared to the deaths of others caused by the negligent use of firearms carried by law enforcement.
Whatever the numbers, taking away their guns is a better answer than giving them more guns.
I’d be happy to entirely disarm the police, except for what they keep in the armory.
Russell, not jazz for God’s sake. As Homer Simpson said, that stuff sounds like they just made it up as they go along.
I want to see a whole bunch of black people walking around Brett’s neighborhood with a six-shooter on each hip. But wearing white hats. To desensitize the hell out of the place.
And I don’t want the cops in Brett’s neighborhood to have the slightest excuse to hassle those gun-toting citizens, so I guess I’m advocating that Brett’s neighbors should legalize open carry, concealed carry, and even intermittent carry just in case anybody wants to juggle three guns while waiting in line at the bank or something.
I am so fond of Brett that I want him to live in his ideal Libertopia: no registration, no licensing, pistols available in blister packs at the CVS like cheap calculators.
As long as Brett doesn’t try to carry his guns around MY neighborhood, he can wear them as earrings for all I care. And he can certainly count on me never to visit HIS neighborhood without a gun. Let the “gun culture” flourish in its own natural habitat, and not get uppity by trying to encroach on mine, and we’re good.
Incidentally: if I could, I would “desensitize” firearms enthusiasts to their phobia of “government” by imposing registration, licensing, and insurance requirements, and then NOT confiscating their guns.
–TP
I want to see a whole bunch of black people walking around Brett’s neighborhood with a six-shooter on each hip. But wearing white hats. To desensitize the hell out of the place.
And I don’t want the cops in Brett’s neighborhood to have the slightest excuse to hassle those gun-toting citizens, so I guess I’m advocating that Brett’s neighbors should legalize open carry, concealed carry, and even intermittent carry just in case anybody wants to juggle three guns while waiting in line at the bank or something.
I am so fond of Brett that I want him to live in his ideal Libertopia: no registration, no licensing, pistols available in blister packs at the CVS like cheap calculators.
As long as Brett doesn’t try to carry his guns around MY neighborhood, he can wear them as earrings for all I care. And he can certainly count on me never to visit HIS neighborhood without a gun. Let the “gun culture” flourish in its own natural habitat, and not get uppity by trying to encroach on mine, and we’re good.
Incidentally: if I could, I would “desensitize” firearms enthusiasts to their phobia of “government” by imposing registration, licensing, and insurance requirements, and then NOT confiscating their guns.
–TP
I want to see a whole bunch of black people walking around Brett’s neighborhood with a six-shooter on each hip. But wearing white hats. To desensitize the hell out of the place.
And I don’t want the cops in Brett’s neighborhood to have the slightest excuse to hassle those gun-toting citizens, so I guess I’m advocating that Brett’s neighbors should legalize open carry, concealed carry, and even intermittent carry just in case anybody wants to juggle three guns while waiting in line at the bank or something.
I am so fond of Brett that I want him to live in his ideal Libertopia: no registration, no licensing, pistols available in blister packs at the CVS like cheap calculators.
As long as Brett doesn’t try to carry his guns around MY neighborhood, he can wear them as earrings for all I care. And he can certainly count on me never to visit HIS neighborhood without a gun. Let the “gun culture” flourish in its own natural habitat, and not get uppity by trying to encroach on mine, and we’re good.
Incidentally: if I could, I would “desensitize” firearms enthusiasts to their phobia of “government” by imposing registration, licensing, and insurance requirements, and then NOT confiscating their guns.
–TP
Brett,
in all of history, there have been NO recorded incidents of people being killed by meteors. There have been some close calls: IIRC, someone in New England had their mailbox destroyed by a meteor; someone else had a meteor punch a hole through their roof.
And, of course the big Russian meteor a few years back blew out some windows with the sonic boom, but disintegrated high in the atmosphere.
OTOH, rifle bullets, fired at random and traveling great distances, have killed people.
Score: meteors: 0, random gunfire >0.
For my own desensitization measure, I plan to tote around a suspicious slightly-radioactive object on a cart, labeled “HYDROGEN BOMB” with a prominent red switch. You can wear your hardhat if you wish.
Brett,
in all of history, there have been NO recorded incidents of people being killed by meteors. There have been some close calls: IIRC, someone in New England had their mailbox destroyed by a meteor; someone else had a meteor punch a hole through their roof.
And, of course the big Russian meteor a few years back blew out some windows with the sonic boom, but disintegrated high in the atmosphere.
OTOH, rifle bullets, fired at random and traveling great distances, have killed people.
Score: meteors: 0, random gunfire >0.
For my own desensitization measure, I plan to tote around a suspicious slightly-radioactive object on a cart, labeled “HYDROGEN BOMB” with a prominent red switch. You can wear your hardhat if you wish.
Brett,
in all of history, there have been NO recorded incidents of people being killed by meteors. There have been some close calls: IIRC, someone in New England had their mailbox destroyed by a meteor; someone else had a meteor punch a hole through their roof.
And, of course the big Russian meteor a few years back blew out some windows with the sonic boom, but disintegrated high in the atmosphere.
OTOH, rifle bullets, fired at random and traveling great distances, have killed people.
Score: meteors: 0, random gunfire >0.
For my own desensitization measure, I plan to tote around a suspicious slightly-radioactive object on a cart, labeled “HYDROGEN BOMB” with a prominent red switch. You can wear your hardhat if you wish.
I’m a little surprised that no one has mentioned the most germane historical reference to a place and time where everyone (for some restricted version of “everyone”) carried guns: the Old West.
I’m no expert on that period, and must admit that my view, like that of most people, is undoubtedly colored by TV/movie/novel portrayals of it, but I would have thought it was reasonably well established that after a period of time in which “everyone” carried guns in certain towns – Dodge City, etc. – the citizens clamored for relief, and the new sheriff or whoever instituted some kind of gun control (up to and including checking your guns at the city limits) as a measure to restrain the endemic violence.
And it seems to have worked, at least as far as we know. Churches, schools, businesses (even bars and brothels), and ordinary civilized/civilian life were made possible, and towns grew, and so the West was Won (or Tamed) and became part of America. This was not imposed by some distant government, in my understanding, but was what the people themselves demanded in the interest of living normal lives.
AFAIK we have no record of towns which refused to take such measures and allowed (or even encouraged) everyone to go about armed, and prospered thereby. One might imagine that such a town, if it existed, would be a magnet for all the gunslingers and Open Carry Enthusiasts in the West, and would represent a clear Libertarian alternative to “civilized” gun-restricted towns, such that residents of Dodge (or wherever) would repent of their ways and say “Damn! We need to allow everyone to carry their guns everywhere again so that we can be as prosperous (and American!) as Gun City over there!”
But I’m not aware that this happened. The West – and the future – belonged to those who opposed completely open carry because they had experienced it.
Surely this is relevant.
I’m a little surprised that no one has mentioned the most germane historical reference to a place and time where everyone (for some restricted version of “everyone”) carried guns: the Old West.
I’m no expert on that period, and must admit that my view, like that of most people, is undoubtedly colored by TV/movie/novel portrayals of it, but I would have thought it was reasonably well established that after a period of time in which “everyone” carried guns in certain towns – Dodge City, etc. – the citizens clamored for relief, and the new sheriff or whoever instituted some kind of gun control (up to and including checking your guns at the city limits) as a measure to restrain the endemic violence.
And it seems to have worked, at least as far as we know. Churches, schools, businesses (even bars and brothels), and ordinary civilized/civilian life were made possible, and towns grew, and so the West was Won (or Tamed) and became part of America. This was not imposed by some distant government, in my understanding, but was what the people themselves demanded in the interest of living normal lives.
AFAIK we have no record of towns which refused to take such measures and allowed (or even encouraged) everyone to go about armed, and prospered thereby. One might imagine that such a town, if it existed, would be a magnet for all the gunslingers and Open Carry Enthusiasts in the West, and would represent a clear Libertarian alternative to “civilized” gun-restricted towns, such that residents of Dodge (or wherever) would repent of their ways and say “Damn! We need to allow everyone to carry their guns everywhere again so that we can be as prosperous (and American!) as Gun City over there!”
But I’m not aware that this happened. The West – and the future – belonged to those who opposed completely open carry because they had experienced it.
Surely this is relevant.
I’m a little surprised that no one has mentioned the most germane historical reference to a place and time where everyone (for some restricted version of “everyone”) carried guns: the Old West.
I’m no expert on that period, and must admit that my view, like that of most people, is undoubtedly colored by TV/movie/novel portrayals of it, but I would have thought it was reasonably well established that after a period of time in which “everyone” carried guns in certain towns – Dodge City, etc. – the citizens clamored for relief, and the new sheriff or whoever instituted some kind of gun control (up to and including checking your guns at the city limits) as a measure to restrain the endemic violence.
And it seems to have worked, at least as far as we know. Churches, schools, businesses (even bars and brothels), and ordinary civilized/civilian life were made possible, and towns grew, and so the West was Won (or Tamed) and became part of America. This was not imposed by some distant government, in my understanding, but was what the people themselves demanded in the interest of living normal lives.
AFAIK we have no record of towns which refused to take such measures and allowed (or even encouraged) everyone to go about armed, and prospered thereby. One might imagine that such a town, if it existed, would be a magnet for all the gunslingers and Open Carry Enthusiasts in the West, and would represent a clear Libertarian alternative to “civilized” gun-restricted towns, such that residents of Dodge (or wherever) would repent of their ways and say “Damn! We need to allow everyone to carry their guns everywhere again so that we can be as prosperous (and American!) as Gun City over there!”
But I’m not aware that this happened. The West – and the future – belonged to those who opposed completely open carry because they had experienced it.
Surely this is relevant.
Well, you got me there, Snarki, I knew a couple people had been hit by meteors, just assumed they’d died of it.
“from the (apparently almost equally rare) cases of individuals like Zimmerman using the guns they carry to shoot someone who was no kind of threat at all?”
Ah, yes, the “reality based community”. A pity it isn’t THIS reality. Instead it’s a bizzaro ‘reality’ where having somebody kneeling on your chest beating your head into the pavement isn’t any kind of threat.
“I want to see a whole bunch of black people walking around Brett’s neighborhood with a six-shooter on each hip. But wearing white hats. To desensitize the hell out of the place.”
You DO realize that most of my neighbors are black, and I live in a state, (Like almost all!) where concealed carry is “shall issue”? I think the odds are good your scenario will be perfectly legal within a couple of years. I certainly hope so.
Well, you got me there, Snarki, I knew a couple people had been hit by meteors, just assumed they’d died of it.
“from the (apparently almost equally rare) cases of individuals like Zimmerman using the guns they carry to shoot someone who was no kind of threat at all?”
Ah, yes, the “reality based community”. A pity it isn’t THIS reality. Instead it’s a bizzaro ‘reality’ where having somebody kneeling on your chest beating your head into the pavement isn’t any kind of threat.
“I want to see a whole bunch of black people walking around Brett’s neighborhood with a six-shooter on each hip. But wearing white hats. To desensitize the hell out of the place.”
You DO realize that most of my neighbors are black, and I live in a state, (Like almost all!) where concealed carry is “shall issue”? I think the odds are good your scenario will be perfectly legal within a couple of years. I certainly hope so.
Well, you got me there, Snarki, I knew a couple people had been hit by meteors, just assumed they’d died of it.
“from the (apparently almost equally rare) cases of individuals like Zimmerman using the guns they carry to shoot someone who was no kind of threat at all?”
Ah, yes, the “reality based community”. A pity it isn’t THIS reality. Instead it’s a bizzaro ‘reality’ where having somebody kneeling on your chest beating your head into the pavement isn’t any kind of threat.
“I want to see a whole bunch of black people walking around Brett’s neighborhood with a six-shooter on each hip. But wearing white hats. To desensitize the hell out of the place.”
You DO realize that most of my neighbors are black, and I live in a state, (Like almost all!) where concealed carry is “shall issue”? I think the odds are good your scenario will be perfectly legal within a couple of years. I certainly hope so.
Charles, no doubt you have data to back up this assertion. I don’t doubt for a minute that you do. But for the benefit of those of us who do not perhaps have access to your sources, could you share them with us?
My assertion has as much provenance as the original assertion.
Which gun owners; or, at least, carries; who “act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured” and face little or no penalties? The ones in uniform seem to be the ones in the news a lot lately.
Charles, no doubt you have data to back up this assertion. I don’t doubt for a minute that you do. But for the benefit of those of us who do not perhaps have access to your sources, could you share them with us?
My assertion has as much provenance as the original assertion.
Which gun owners; or, at least, carries; who “act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured” and face little or no penalties? The ones in uniform seem to be the ones in the news a lot lately.
Charles, no doubt you have data to back up this assertion. I don’t doubt for a minute that you do. But for the benefit of those of us who do not perhaps have access to your sources, could you share them with us?
My assertion has as much provenance as the original assertion.
Which gun owners; or, at least, carries; who “act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured” and face little or no penalties? The ones in uniform seem to be the ones in the news a lot lately.
[…]
Winkler found that in the allegedly gun-loving outposts of the wild West, gun confiscation was commonplace. “Frontier towns handled guns the way a Boston restaurant today handles overcoats in winter,” he writes. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token. Certain places required people to check their guns at one of the major entry points to town or leave their weapons with their horses at the livery stables.” Further confounding the notion that gun control is a people’s cause, Winkler reports that guns were taken away not just in the interest of public safety but also to promote what leftists now call corporatism. Because the political leaders of frontier towns wanted to attract business investors who would spur economic development, they chose to follow the dictum of a newspaper editor in the cattle town of Caldwell, Kansas: “People who have money to invest go where they are protected by law, and where good society and order reign.”
[…]
Controlling Guns, Controlling People: A new history shows how gun control goes hand in hand with fear of black people—and The People. (Review: Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, by Adam Winkler)
[…]
Winkler found that in the allegedly gun-loving outposts of the wild West, gun confiscation was commonplace. “Frontier towns handled guns the way a Boston restaurant today handles overcoats in winter,” he writes. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token. Certain places required people to check their guns at one of the major entry points to town or leave their weapons with their horses at the livery stables.” Further confounding the notion that gun control is a people’s cause, Winkler reports that guns were taken away not just in the interest of public safety but also to promote what leftists now call corporatism. Because the political leaders of frontier towns wanted to attract business investors who would spur economic development, they chose to follow the dictum of a newspaper editor in the cattle town of Caldwell, Kansas: “People who have money to invest go where they are protected by law, and where good society and order reign.”
[…]
Controlling Guns, Controlling People: A new history shows how gun control goes hand in hand with fear of black people—and The People. (Review: Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, by Adam Winkler)
[…]
Winkler found that in the allegedly gun-loving outposts of the wild West, gun confiscation was commonplace. “Frontier towns handled guns the way a Boston restaurant today handles overcoats in winter,” he writes. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token. Certain places required people to check their guns at one of the major entry points to town or leave their weapons with their horses at the livery stables.” Further confounding the notion that gun control is a people’s cause, Winkler reports that guns were taken away not just in the interest of public safety but also to promote what leftists now call corporatism. Because the political leaders of frontier towns wanted to attract business investors who would spur economic development, they chose to follow the dictum of a newspaper editor in the cattle town of Caldwell, Kansas: “People who have money to invest go where they are protected by law, and where good society and order reign.”
[…]
Controlling Guns, Controlling People: A new history shows how gun control goes hand in hand with fear of black people—and The People. (Review: Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, by Adam Winkler)
Gunfighter – Fact and Fiction
Gunfighter – Fact and Fiction
Gunfighter – Fact and Fiction
Instead it’s a bizzaro ‘reality’ where having somebody kneeling on your chest beating your head into the pavement isn’t any kind of threat.
and what kind of ‘reality’ starts the scene with Martin on to of Zimmerman, instead of Zimmerman chasing Martin around the neighborhood ?
events have causes. and it’s patently dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Instead it’s a bizzaro ‘reality’ where having somebody kneeling on your chest beating your head into the pavement isn’t any kind of threat.
and what kind of ‘reality’ starts the scene with Martin on to of Zimmerman, instead of Zimmerman chasing Martin around the neighborhood ?
events have causes. and it’s patently dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Instead it’s a bizzaro ‘reality’ where having somebody kneeling on your chest beating your head into the pavement isn’t any kind of threat.
and what kind of ‘reality’ starts the scene with Martin on to of Zimmerman, instead of Zimmerman chasing Martin around the neighborhood ?
events have causes. and it’s patently dishonest to pretend otherwise.
It took me a long time as a young gunslinger while finishing off an opponent to learn the proper sequence of firing my gun and then blowing into or across the end of the barrel, while maintaining a steely-eyed lookout for ambush, to clear the smoke from the barrel.
See, you youngin whippersnappers, if you are firing quickly and consecutively in the heat of the moment and alternating blowing across the barrel, sometimes you get mixed up and make the mistake of pointing the gun at the varmint you intend to shoot and and instead of pulling the trigger, you make a blowing motion with your mouth, and THEN, without noticing, you put the barrel of the gun up to your mouth and pull the trigger.
I lost three good hats and an ear that way, not to mention my left eyebrow, with is why to this day I have a permanent cocked eyebrow expression, what with the one remaining eyebrow now doing the work of two.
Now, my mother, a formidable and fearsome frontier wife, was known as the Wyatt Earp of our household. Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Doris.
One morning, after my Dad had left for his work as a stage coach driver, my brother and I (I must have been all of eight and he was six) ambushed the woman while she was in her bathroom sitting on the throne minding her own business.
We had her at full disadvantage, as you can imagine. It wasn’t exactly the OK Corral, but as bathrooms go, it was alright, though without a lot of room to maneuver.
Let me recreate the picture for you. There she was as vulnerable as a jaybird sitting on a fencepost in the middle of a Comanche war party, and well, at that time in my gun fighting career, I wore a single long barreled pistol in a holster tied low on my right thigh with a rawhide thong so as to avoid the “Barney Fife effect” where you draw your gun and it gets caught up in the holster and while you’re tugging at it, you look up and some rascal has the jump on you.
You just look silly, especially at Starbucks, when your gun and holster will not part ways despite your flailing and the barista has time to throw a perfectly good double frappacino in yer face and hightail it for the Sheriff.
We Mericans didn’t settle and civilize this country to look like a bunch of silly fools, despite recent bounteous evidence to the contrary.
Anyways, back to the wardrobe, which is 9/10ths of the presentation of any gunfighter worth his salt, though Doc Holliday has advised me to go low on the sodium.
I wore a black hat, the brim fashioned to hang low over my bad eye, and my gun belt had a single turquoise profile of Mickey Mantle set into the buckle, pearl-handled gun, and a handsome fitted shirt with matching pearl buttons, and cowboy boots, plain, without all of that leather work rigamarole affected by the Nancy Boys in Dallas. No spurs in this particular case, because the jingling would have queered the ambush of my mother.
Both my brother and I wore kerchiefs pulled up over our mouths and noses on the off chance that my mother would recognize us and turn us in to our Dad.
However, my brother at six years of age, wore every gunfighter accroutrement he’d picked up from Maverick, Bat Masterson, Cheyenne, Sugarfoot, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Have Gun, Will Travel, Death Valley Days, The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok, Destry, The Lawman, Laramie, Annie Oakley, Wanted:Dead and Alive, Rawhide, the Gabby Hayes Show, Yancy Derringer, Colt 45, Broken Arrow, The Long ranger, The Short Ranger, and for good measure Sky King, Zorro, and Fury.
Two pistols, which he drew with a cross over motion with both hands, a black mask over his eyes, fake Annie Oakley braids falling out from under his hat, which itself had a feather and silver work on it, a silver belt buckle fashioned into the horns of a longhorn so cumbersome he had to walk sideways through the saloon doors, spurs that made so much noise you couldn’t take him on cattle drives for all the stampedes he caused, and boots with multi-colored tooling worn OUTSIDE his dungarees, like one of them city boys, a cape, a cane, a derringer in one boot, a cigarillo in a cigarette holder jutting out at any angle like FDR, chaw pouch, a lariat over one shoulder, and over the other a fully fashioned noose was draped, in case some dragging behind a wagon to a hanging tree was called for.
And don’t get me started the fancy pants horse he rode in on. If you think Ice Capades, you’d be close. Durn tootin!.
I should add that our younger brother, 2 1/2 years old tailed us on this mission, and sort of hung back to watch the horses, but he was a minimalist — double holster (empty, no guns) askew over his short blue plastic training pants, a blue plastic baby milk bottle dangling by the nipple from his mouth (like Doc Holliday, he had a little problem with the sauce), all topped off with a hand-me-down bright red cowboy hat tipped back his forehead and settled on back half of his head, yeah boy (we have the daguerreotypes for proof).
More a buddy than an hombre, but he could do a credible imitation of Andy Devine as a two year old.
Anyways, we entered my mother’s bathroom guns drawn, and demanded she put em up. My mother, sitting there, who had dealt with tougher customers than us in her day, kind of put one hand half way up and then narrowed her eyes and said, very deliberately, “You boys … looking fer trouble? Cause if you are, you come to the right place.”
My brother, always quick on the draw, said, “Never mind all that, just hand over yer saddlebags and that bag of gold nuggets, and make it snappy.”
To which my mother, like any seasoned saloon senorita down at the cantina, replied: “Listen boys, how’s about we head downstairs and I’ll fix you some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and pour you each a tall cool glass of chocolate milk to kinda cut the trail dust from your thirsty mouths? This heat could near kill a body.”
My brother, always all hat and no cattle, immediately lowered his guns and asked “Can we drink through straws?”
“Sure boys. And it’s on the house! But one thing. You’ll have to hand over them sidearms while you’re in my town, and you can collect them as you leave town, which I hope will happen by sundown.”
Then she broke into a rousing rendition of “I’m just a gal who Cain’t Say No”
We accepted her terms, which come to think of it, since her pants were down around her ankles and we were fully armed, is more understanding and gracious than the current crop of a*sholes loose on the street these a days.
Thus ended that saga of the men who lived and died by the gun.
Let that be a lesson to ya. Now, scram!
It took me a long time as a young gunslinger while finishing off an opponent to learn the proper sequence of firing my gun and then blowing into or across the end of the barrel, while maintaining a steely-eyed lookout for ambush, to clear the smoke from the barrel.
See, you youngin whippersnappers, if you are firing quickly and consecutively in the heat of the moment and alternating blowing across the barrel, sometimes you get mixed up and make the mistake of pointing the gun at the varmint you intend to shoot and and instead of pulling the trigger, you make a blowing motion with your mouth, and THEN, without noticing, you put the barrel of the gun up to your mouth and pull the trigger.
I lost three good hats and an ear that way, not to mention my left eyebrow, with is why to this day I have a permanent cocked eyebrow expression, what with the one remaining eyebrow now doing the work of two.
Now, my mother, a formidable and fearsome frontier wife, was known as the Wyatt Earp of our household. Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Doris.
One morning, after my Dad had left for his work as a stage coach driver, my brother and I (I must have been all of eight and he was six) ambushed the woman while she was in her bathroom sitting on the throne minding her own business.
We had her at full disadvantage, as you can imagine. It wasn’t exactly the OK Corral, but as bathrooms go, it was alright, though without a lot of room to maneuver.
Let me recreate the picture for you. There she was as vulnerable as a jaybird sitting on a fencepost in the middle of a Comanche war party, and well, at that time in my gun fighting career, I wore a single long barreled pistol in a holster tied low on my right thigh with a rawhide thong so as to avoid the “Barney Fife effect” where you draw your gun and it gets caught up in the holster and while you’re tugging at it, you look up and some rascal has the jump on you.
You just look silly, especially at Starbucks, when your gun and holster will not part ways despite your flailing and the barista has time to throw a perfectly good double frappacino in yer face and hightail it for the Sheriff.
We Mericans didn’t settle and civilize this country to look like a bunch of silly fools, despite recent bounteous evidence to the contrary.
Anyways, back to the wardrobe, which is 9/10ths of the presentation of any gunfighter worth his salt, though Doc Holliday has advised me to go low on the sodium.
I wore a black hat, the brim fashioned to hang low over my bad eye, and my gun belt had a single turquoise profile of Mickey Mantle set into the buckle, pearl-handled gun, and a handsome fitted shirt with matching pearl buttons, and cowboy boots, plain, without all of that leather work rigamarole affected by the Nancy Boys in Dallas. No spurs in this particular case, because the jingling would have queered the ambush of my mother.
Both my brother and I wore kerchiefs pulled up over our mouths and noses on the off chance that my mother would recognize us and turn us in to our Dad.
However, my brother at six years of age, wore every gunfighter accroutrement he’d picked up from Maverick, Bat Masterson, Cheyenne, Sugarfoot, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Have Gun, Will Travel, Death Valley Days, The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok, Destry, The Lawman, Laramie, Annie Oakley, Wanted:Dead and Alive, Rawhide, the Gabby Hayes Show, Yancy Derringer, Colt 45, Broken Arrow, The Long ranger, The Short Ranger, and for good measure Sky King, Zorro, and Fury.
Two pistols, which he drew with a cross over motion with both hands, a black mask over his eyes, fake Annie Oakley braids falling out from under his hat, which itself had a feather and silver work on it, a silver belt buckle fashioned into the horns of a longhorn so cumbersome he had to walk sideways through the saloon doors, spurs that made so much noise you couldn’t take him on cattle drives for all the stampedes he caused, and boots with multi-colored tooling worn OUTSIDE his dungarees, like one of them city boys, a cape, a cane, a derringer in one boot, a cigarillo in a cigarette holder jutting out at any angle like FDR, chaw pouch, a lariat over one shoulder, and over the other a fully fashioned noose was draped, in case some dragging behind a wagon to a hanging tree was called for.
And don’t get me started the fancy pants horse he rode in on. If you think Ice Capades, you’d be close. Durn tootin!.
I should add that our younger brother, 2 1/2 years old tailed us on this mission, and sort of hung back to watch the horses, but he was a minimalist — double holster (empty, no guns) askew over his short blue plastic training pants, a blue plastic baby milk bottle dangling by the nipple from his mouth (like Doc Holliday, he had a little problem with the sauce), all topped off with a hand-me-down bright red cowboy hat tipped back his forehead and settled on back half of his head, yeah boy (we have the daguerreotypes for proof).
More a buddy than an hombre, but he could do a credible imitation of Andy Devine as a two year old.
Anyways, we entered my mother’s bathroom guns drawn, and demanded she put em up. My mother, sitting there, who had dealt with tougher customers than us in her day, kind of put one hand half way up and then narrowed her eyes and said, very deliberately, “You boys … looking fer trouble? Cause if you are, you come to the right place.”
My brother, always quick on the draw, said, “Never mind all that, just hand over yer saddlebags and that bag of gold nuggets, and make it snappy.”
To which my mother, like any seasoned saloon senorita down at the cantina, replied: “Listen boys, how’s about we head downstairs and I’ll fix you some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and pour you each a tall cool glass of chocolate milk to kinda cut the trail dust from your thirsty mouths? This heat could near kill a body.”
My brother, always all hat and no cattle, immediately lowered his guns and asked “Can we drink through straws?”
“Sure boys. And it’s on the house! But one thing. You’ll have to hand over them sidearms while you’re in my town, and you can collect them as you leave town, which I hope will happen by sundown.”
Then she broke into a rousing rendition of “I’m just a gal who Cain’t Say No”
We accepted her terms, which come to think of it, since her pants were down around her ankles and we were fully armed, is more understanding and gracious than the current crop of a*sholes loose on the street these a days.
Thus ended that saga of the men who lived and died by the gun.
Let that be a lesson to ya. Now, scram!
It took me a long time as a young gunslinger while finishing off an opponent to learn the proper sequence of firing my gun and then blowing into or across the end of the barrel, while maintaining a steely-eyed lookout for ambush, to clear the smoke from the barrel.
See, you youngin whippersnappers, if you are firing quickly and consecutively in the heat of the moment and alternating blowing across the barrel, sometimes you get mixed up and make the mistake of pointing the gun at the varmint you intend to shoot and and instead of pulling the trigger, you make a blowing motion with your mouth, and THEN, without noticing, you put the barrel of the gun up to your mouth and pull the trigger.
I lost three good hats and an ear that way, not to mention my left eyebrow, with is why to this day I have a permanent cocked eyebrow expression, what with the one remaining eyebrow now doing the work of two.
Now, my mother, a formidable and fearsome frontier wife, was known as the Wyatt Earp of our household. Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Doris.
One morning, after my Dad had left for his work as a stage coach driver, my brother and I (I must have been all of eight and he was six) ambushed the woman while she was in her bathroom sitting on the throne minding her own business.
We had her at full disadvantage, as you can imagine. It wasn’t exactly the OK Corral, but as bathrooms go, it was alright, though without a lot of room to maneuver.
Let me recreate the picture for you. There she was as vulnerable as a jaybird sitting on a fencepost in the middle of a Comanche war party, and well, at that time in my gun fighting career, I wore a single long barreled pistol in a holster tied low on my right thigh with a rawhide thong so as to avoid the “Barney Fife effect” where you draw your gun and it gets caught up in the holster and while you’re tugging at it, you look up and some rascal has the jump on you.
You just look silly, especially at Starbucks, when your gun and holster will not part ways despite your flailing and the barista has time to throw a perfectly good double frappacino in yer face and hightail it for the Sheriff.
We Mericans didn’t settle and civilize this country to look like a bunch of silly fools, despite recent bounteous evidence to the contrary.
Anyways, back to the wardrobe, which is 9/10ths of the presentation of any gunfighter worth his salt, though Doc Holliday has advised me to go low on the sodium.
I wore a black hat, the brim fashioned to hang low over my bad eye, and my gun belt had a single turquoise profile of Mickey Mantle set into the buckle, pearl-handled gun, and a handsome fitted shirt with matching pearl buttons, and cowboy boots, plain, without all of that leather work rigamarole affected by the Nancy Boys in Dallas. No spurs in this particular case, because the jingling would have queered the ambush of my mother.
Both my brother and I wore kerchiefs pulled up over our mouths and noses on the off chance that my mother would recognize us and turn us in to our Dad.
However, my brother at six years of age, wore every gunfighter accroutrement he’d picked up from Maverick, Bat Masterson, Cheyenne, Sugarfoot, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Have Gun, Will Travel, Death Valley Days, The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok, Destry, The Lawman, Laramie, Annie Oakley, Wanted:Dead and Alive, Rawhide, the Gabby Hayes Show, Yancy Derringer, Colt 45, Broken Arrow, The Long ranger, The Short Ranger, and for good measure Sky King, Zorro, and Fury.
Two pistols, which he drew with a cross over motion with both hands, a black mask over his eyes, fake Annie Oakley braids falling out from under his hat, which itself had a feather and silver work on it, a silver belt buckle fashioned into the horns of a longhorn so cumbersome he had to walk sideways through the saloon doors, spurs that made so much noise you couldn’t take him on cattle drives for all the stampedes he caused, and boots with multi-colored tooling worn OUTSIDE his dungarees, like one of them city boys, a cape, a cane, a derringer in one boot, a cigarillo in a cigarette holder jutting out at any angle like FDR, chaw pouch, a lariat over one shoulder, and over the other a fully fashioned noose was draped, in case some dragging behind a wagon to a hanging tree was called for.
And don’t get me started the fancy pants horse he rode in on. If you think Ice Capades, you’d be close. Durn tootin!.
I should add that our younger brother, 2 1/2 years old tailed us on this mission, and sort of hung back to watch the horses, but he was a minimalist — double holster (empty, no guns) askew over his short blue plastic training pants, a blue plastic baby milk bottle dangling by the nipple from his mouth (like Doc Holliday, he had a little problem with the sauce), all topped off with a hand-me-down bright red cowboy hat tipped back his forehead and settled on back half of his head, yeah boy (we have the daguerreotypes for proof).
More a buddy than an hombre, but he could do a credible imitation of Andy Devine as a two year old.
Anyways, we entered my mother’s bathroom guns drawn, and demanded she put em up. My mother, sitting there, who had dealt with tougher customers than us in her day, kind of put one hand half way up and then narrowed her eyes and said, very deliberately, “You boys … looking fer trouble? Cause if you are, you come to the right place.”
My brother, always quick on the draw, said, “Never mind all that, just hand over yer saddlebags and that bag of gold nuggets, and make it snappy.”
To which my mother, like any seasoned saloon senorita down at the cantina, replied: “Listen boys, how’s about we head downstairs and I’ll fix you some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and pour you each a tall cool glass of chocolate milk to kinda cut the trail dust from your thirsty mouths? This heat could near kill a body.”
My brother, always all hat and no cattle, immediately lowered his guns and asked “Can we drink through straws?”
“Sure boys. And it’s on the house! But one thing. You’ll have to hand over them sidearms while you’re in my town, and you can collect them as you leave town, which I hope will happen by sundown.”
Then she broke into a rousing rendition of “I’m just a gal who Cain’t Say No”
We accepted her terms, which come to think of it, since her pants were down around her ankles and we were fully armed, is more understanding and gracious than the current crop of a*sholes loose on the street these a days.
Thus ended that saga of the men who lived and died by the gun.
Let that be a lesson to ya. Now, scram!
I do wonder how Brett is progressing in his “desensitization training” on SSM.
Has he seen enough images of guys kissing, with lots of tongue and ass-grabbing to be desensitized yet?
Or do we need to send out word via Obamaphone that the gay-agenda needs to be taken up a notch?
I do wonder how Brett is progressing in his “desensitization training” on SSM.
Has he seen enough images of guys kissing, with lots of tongue and ass-grabbing to be desensitized yet?
Or do we need to send out word via Obamaphone that the gay-agenda needs to be taken up a notch?
I do wonder how Brett is progressing in his “desensitization training” on SSM.
Has he seen enough images of guys kissing, with lots of tongue and ass-grabbing to be desensitized yet?
Or do we need to send out word via Obamaphone that the gay-agenda needs to be taken up a notch?
Why is it important to be able to carry a handgun openly?
Just to weigh in briefly before getting back to work.
I personally don’t own a firearm, but I can describe what I’ve been told by friends who own firearms.
One of the major difficulties is that neighboring states or municipalities often have conflicting gun laws, the penalties are often high. If you move around a lot, or have to travel a lot, its almost impossible to keep track of all of the laws. An honest mistake made by an otherwise responsible gun owner, can result in fines or even jail time. For example:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/gov_christie_grants_pardon_to_pistol-packing_pa_mo.html
Just as a recent example. There is a patchwork of laws, those laws change, it can be hard for responsible gun owner to keep track of. Or in other words:
Carry open is OK, but concealed is not. Or, vice versa. Or, you can carry a rifle but not a handgun. To me, it all seems like some weird argument about some obscure theological topic, or maybe the rules for cricket.
Now imagine if you own a gun, and misunderstanding those obscure theological rules could result in jail time.
It seems to me that, for most self-defense purposes, it would be advantageous for a potential opponent to *not* know, up front and in advance, that you are armed.
Unless you actually want to get into a violent conflict, the deterrent is likely the far more important aspect of self defense. In my experience, most gun owners don’t want to hurt anybody.
Other than maybe cars, they are hands-down the most dangerous thing that is commonly owned, and unlike cars they have no purpose or use other than to be dangerous.
I’d like to say its entirely reasonable to hold that view, and to be uncomfortable around guns. FWIW, its an understandable position.
Why is it important to be able to carry a handgun openly?
Just to weigh in briefly before getting back to work.
I personally don’t own a firearm, but I can describe what I’ve been told by friends who own firearms.
One of the major difficulties is that neighboring states or municipalities often have conflicting gun laws, the penalties are often high. If you move around a lot, or have to travel a lot, its almost impossible to keep track of all of the laws. An honest mistake made by an otherwise responsible gun owner, can result in fines or even jail time. For example:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/gov_christie_grants_pardon_to_pistol-packing_pa_mo.html
Just as a recent example. There is a patchwork of laws, those laws change, it can be hard for responsible gun owner to keep track of. Or in other words:
Carry open is OK, but concealed is not. Or, vice versa. Or, you can carry a rifle but not a handgun. To me, it all seems like some weird argument about some obscure theological topic, or maybe the rules for cricket.
Now imagine if you own a gun, and misunderstanding those obscure theological rules could result in jail time.
It seems to me that, for most self-defense purposes, it would be advantageous for a potential opponent to *not* know, up front and in advance, that you are armed.
Unless you actually want to get into a violent conflict, the deterrent is likely the far more important aspect of self defense. In my experience, most gun owners don’t want to hurt anybody.
Other than maybe cars, they are hands-down the most dangerous thing that is commonly owned, and unlike cars they have no purpose or use other than to be dangerous.
I’d like to say its entirely reasonable to hold that view, and to be uncomfortable around guns. FWIW, its an understandable position.
Why is it important to be able to carry a handgun openly?
Just to weigh in briefly before getting back to work.
I personally don’t own a firearm, but I can describe what I’ve been told by friends who own firearms.
One of the major difficulties is that neighboring states or municipalities often have conflicting gun laws, the penalties are often high. If you move around a lot, or have to travel a lot, its almost impossible to keep track of all of the laws. An honest mistake made by an otherwise responsible gun owner, can result in fines or even jail time. For example:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/gov_christie_grants_pardon_to_pistol-packing_pa_mo.html
Just as a recent example. There is a patchwork of laws, those laws change, it can be hard for responsible gun owner to keep track of. Or in other words:
Carry open is OK, but concealed is not. Or, vice versa. Or, you can carry a rifle but not a handgun. To me, it all seems like some weird argument about some obscure theological topic, or maybe the rules for cricket.
Now imagine if you own a gun, and misunderstanding those obscure theological rules could result in jail time.
It seems to me that, for most self-defense purposes, it would be advantageous for a potential opponent to *not* know, up front and in advance, that you are armed.
Unless you actually want to get into a violent conflict, the deterrent is likely the far more important aspect of self defense. In my experience, most gun owners don’t want to hurt anybody.
Other than maybe cars, they are hands-down the most dangerous thing that is commonly owned, and unlike cars they have no purpose or use other than to be dangerous.
I’d like to say its entirely reasonable to hold that view, and to be uncomfortable around guns. FWIW, its an understandable position.
I, and most of the people I grew up with in Texas, think concealed carry should be confined to law enforcement. If you want to carry a gun I should know you have it. Deterrent effect is good and I know to avoid you.
I, and most of the people I grew up with in Texas, think concealed carry should be confined to law enforcement. If you want to carry a gun I should know you have it. Deterrent effect is good and I know to avoid you.
I, and most of the people I grew up with in Texas, think concealed carry should be confined to law enforcement. If you want to carry a gun I should know you have it. Deterrent effect is good and I know to avoid you.
Marty: If you want to carry a gun I should know you have it. Deterrent effect is good and I know to avoid you.
Amen. And I say this not as your potential mugger but as your potential customer, or employer, or friend.
FWIW, registration is basically the public form of “I should know you have it”.
–TP
Marty: If you want to carry a gun I should know you have it. Deterrent effect is good and I know to avoid you.
Amen. And I say this not as your potential mugger but as your potential customer, or employer, or friend.
FWIW, registration is basically the public form of “I should know you have it”.
–TP
Marty: If you want to carry a gun I should know you have it. Deterrent effect is good and I know to avoid you.
Amen. And I say this not as your potential mugger but as your potential customer, or employer, or friend.
FWIW, registration is basically the public form of “I should know you have it”.
–TP
I occasionally visit a dive bar in Golden, Colorado with one of my softball teams and just a few years ago, I’m told, a drunk guy, a regular, lost at pool (may have been Lindsay Graham, though I’ve never seen an Iranian playing pool in there) and left the joint in a huff, only to return in a second and a huff with a chainsaw from his truck, yanked the starter chain and raised that thing above his head, intending to cut one of the pool tables in half, or so he bellowed.
He was tackled and the chainsaw fell to the floor and bounced around with the motor still running, until someone could get to it.
Don’t know what ensued in the way of law enforcement but nobody pulled out a gun and shot him.
The Golden City Fathers declined in their wisdom to pass an ordinance allowing everyone and anyone to carry a running chainsaw as self-defense, figuring one miserable sh8thead with a lethal power tool in public is one too many already.
“I know to avoid you.”
In my case, I’m not crossing the street to avoid anyone. They don’t like the look on my face as I glare as a deterrence at them and their posses’ popguns, they can use the sidewalk across the street.
But don’t jaywalk. It’s not safe. Wait at the corner until the light turns like a human f*cking being, unless that authority figure puts you out of sorts too.
In which case, they can go f*ck themselves.
I occasionally visit a dive bar in Golden, Colorado with one of my softball teams and just a few years ago, I’m told, a drunk guy, a regular, lost at pool (may have been Lindsay Graham, though I’ve never seen an Iranian playing pool in there) and left the joint in a huff, only to return in a second and a huff with a chainsaw from his truck, yanked the starter chain and raised that thing above his head, intending to cut one of the pool tables in half, or so he bellowed.
He was tackled and the chainsaw fell to the floor and bounced around with the motor still running, until someone could get to it.
Don’t know what ensued in the way of law enforcement but nobody pulled out a gun and shot him.
The Golden City Fathers declined in their wisdom to pass an ordinance allowing everyone and anyone to carry a running chainsaw as self-defense, figuring one miserable sh8thead with a lethal power tool in public is one too many already.
“I know to avoid you.”
In my case, I’m not crossing the street to avoid anyone. They don’t like the look on my face as I glare as a deterrence at them and their posses’ popguns, they can use the sidewalk across the street.
But don’t jaywalk. It’s not safe. Wait at the corner until the light turns like a human f*cking being, unless that authority figure puts you out of sorts too.
In which case, they can go f*ck themselves.
I occasionally visit a dive bar in Golden, Colorado with one of my softball teams and just a few years ago, I’m told, a drunk guy, a regular, lost at pool (may have been Lindsay Graham, though I’ve never seen an Iranian playing pool in there) and left the joint in a huff, only to return in a second and a huff with a chainsaw from his truck, yanked the starter chain and raised that thing above his head, intending to cut one of the pool tables in half, or so he bellowed.
He was tackled and the chainsaw fell to the floor and bounced around with the motor still running, until someone could get to it.
Don’t know what ensued in the way of law enforcement but nobody pulled out a gun and shot him.
The Golden City Fathers declined in their wisdom to pass an ordinance allowing everyone and anyone to carry a running chainsaw as self-defense, figuring one miserable sh8thead with a lethal power tool in public is one too many already.
“I know to avoid you.”
In my case, I’m not crossing the street to avoid anyone. They don’t like the look on my face as I glare as a deterrence at them and their posses’ popguns, they can use the sidewalk across the street.
But don’t jaywalk. It’s not safe. Wait at the corner until the light turns like a human f*cking being, unless that authority figure puts you out of sorts too.
In which case, they can go f*ck themselves.
“events have causes. and it’s patently dishonest to pretend otherwise.”
Why, yes, it IS patently dishonest to pretend that Martin getting shot had nothing to do with his kneeling on Zimmerman while beating his head against the pavement. In as much as he was shot AFTER doing this, and not before.
“events have causes. and it’s patently dishonest to pretend otherwise.”
Why, yes, it IS patently dishonest to pretend that Martin getting shot had nothing to do with his kneeling on Zimmerman while beating his head against the pavement. In as much as he was shot AFTER doing this, and not before.
“events have causes. and it’s patently dishonest to pretend otherwise.”
Why, yes, it IS patently dishonest to pretend that Martin getting shot had nothing to do with his kneeling on Zimmerman while beating his head against the pavement. In as much as he was shot AFTER doing this, and not before.
And you could patent the deliberate dishonest avoidance of the fact that Zimmerman was stalking and harassing an innocent kid, who had no idea who or what intentions Z had and, if the circumstances would have been reversed with Martin stalking Zimmerman, given the behavior of your all-star Zimmerman since, we know that the latter, being armed like a coward who can’t defend himself with his fists, would have shot the black menace point blank and made up some sh*t when asked questions later.
And then he really would have that talk show gig on FOX.
And you could patent the deliberate dishonest avoidance of the fact that Zimmerman was stalking and harassing an innocent kid, who had no idea who or what intentions Z had and, if the circumstances would have been reversed with Martin stalking Zimmerman, given the behavior of your all-star Zimmerman since, we know that the latter, being armed like a coward who can’t defend himself with his fists, would have shot the black menace point blank and made up some sh*t when asked questions later.
And then he really would have that talk show gig on FOX.
And you could patent the deliberate dishonest avoidance of the fact that Zimmerman was stalking and harassing an innocent kid, who had no idea who or what intentions Z had and, if the circumstances would have been reversed with Martin stalking Zimmerman, given the behavior of your all-star Zimmerman since, we know that the latter, being armed like a coward who can’t defend himself with his fists, would have shot the black menace point blank and made up some sh*t when asked questions later.
And then he really would have that talk show gig on FOX.
thompson, is this your idea of a conniption fit? 😉
“One of the major difficulties is that neighboring states or municipalities often have conflicting gun laws, the penalties are often high. If you move around a lot, or have to travel a lot, its almost impossible to keep track of all of the laws. An honest mistake made by an otherwise responsible gun owner, can result in fines or even jail time.”
So what we have here is yet another case of some the usual suspects having principles, and if we don’t like those, they have others.
What happened to local control, the government closest to you makes for the happiest people in the whole wide world, states rights, one size fits all is unAmerican, bla, bla, bla, bla, with none of those “bla’s” meant in the Santorum sense?
Traffic rules, marijuana and liquor laws, health insurance, etc, but guns and fracking it’s Big Brother all the way.
thompson, is this your idea of a conniption fit? 😉
“One of the major difficulties is that neighboring states or municipalities often have conflicting gun laws, the penalties are often high. If you move around a lot, or have to travel a lot, its almost impossible to keep track of all of the laws. An honest mistake made by an otherwise responsible gun owner, can result in fines or even jail time.”
So what we have here is yet another case of some the usual suspects having principles, and if we don’t like those, they have others.
What happened to local control, the government closest to you makes for the happiest people in the whole wide world, states rights, one size fits all is unAmerican, bla, bla, bla, bla, with none of those “bla’s” meant in the Santorum sense?
Traffic rules, marijuana and liquor laws, health insurance, etc, but guns and fracking it’s Big Brother all the way.
thompson, is this your idea of a conniption fit? 😉
“One of the major difficulties is that neighboring states or municipalities often have conflicting gun laws, the penalties are often high. If you move around a lot, or have to travel a lot, its almost impossible to keep track of all of the laws. An honest mistake made by an otherwise responsible gun owner, can result in fines or even jail time.”
So what we have here is yet another case of some the usual suspects having principles, and if we don’t like those, they have others.
What happened to local control, the government closest to you makes for the happiest people in the whole wide world, states rights, one size fits all is unAmerican, bla, bla, bla, bla, with none of those “bla’s” meant in the Santorum sense?
Traffic rules, marijuana and liquor laws, health insurance, etc, but guns and fracking it’s Big Brother all the way.
Why, yes, it IS patently dishonest to pretend that Martin getting shot had nothing to do with his kneeling on Zimmerman while beating his head against the pavement.
history starts exactly when you say it does, and not a moment sooner. got it.
Why, yes, it IS patently dishonest to pretend that Martin getting shot had nothing to do with his kneeling on Zimmerman while beating his head against the pavement.
history starts exactly when you say it does, and not a moment sooner. got it.
Why, yes, it IS patently dishonest to pretend that Martin getting shot had nothing to do with his kneeling on Zimmerman while beating his head against the pavement.
history starts exactly when you say it does, and not a moment sooner. got it.
Which gun owners; or, at least, carries; who “act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured” and face little or no penalties? The ones in uniform seem to be the ones in the news a lot lately.
Why I thought you’d never ask. Here they are:
Here’s a mother who was shot dead by her three year old after she carelessly allowed the child to have access to a loaded firearm. The husband/father faced no penalties despite living in a house with unsecured firearms easily accessible to the small children that lived there (hint: keeping a loaded firearm under the coach is not securing it).
Here’s a guy who shot his seven year old because his rifle “misfired” while he didn’t bother pointing it at the ground.
Here’s a woman whose husband was too stupid to remove the loaded handgun from his pants before putting them in the hamper, so when his wife picked them up to wash them, boom.
Which gun owners; or, at least, carries; who “act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured” and face little or no penalties? The ones in uniform seem to be the ones in the news a lot lately.
Why I thought you’d never ask. Here they are:
Here’s a mother who was shot dead by her three year old after she carelessly allowed the child to have access to a loaded firearm. The husband/father faced no penalties despite living in a house with unsecured firearms easily accessible to the small children that lived there (hint: keeping a loaded firearm under the coach is not securing it).
Here’s a guy who shot his seven year old because his rifle “misfired” while he didn’t bother pointing it at the ground.
Here’s a woman whose husband was too stupid to remove the loaded handgun from his pants before putting them in the hamper, so when his wife picked them up to wash them, boom.
Which gun owners; or, at least, carries; who “act in the most reckless and negligent ways possible with their guns, someone gets killed or seriously injured” and face little or no penalties? The ones in uniform seem to be the ones in the news a lot lately.
Why I thought you’d never ask. Here they are:
Here’s a mother who was shot dead by her three year old after she carelessly allowed the child to have access to a loaded firearm. The husband/father faced no penalties despite living in a house with unsecured firearms easily accessible to the small children that lived there (hint: keeping a loaded firearm under the coach is not securing it).
Here’s a guy who shot his seven year old because his rifle “misfired” while he didn’t bother pointing it at the ground.
Here’s a woman whose husband was too stupid to remove the loaded handgun from his pants before putting them in the hamper, so when his wife picked them up to wash them, boom.
Here are some more…
Here’s the case I started talking about, the 5 year old who shot his three year old sister with a child-sized (but real) rifle that was left, loaded, lying in the living room for him to play with. No sanction or punishment for the parents. Since the state doesn’t think they did anything wrong, I guess they can leave that rifle loaded in their living room every day now.
Here’s a genuis who “accidentally” threw his gun into a bonfire and SURPRISE! It shot him and his buddy. “No criminal activity” though.
Here’s a grandmother who shot her 7 year old grandson because she “thought” he was an intruder. “Thinking” is easy when you shoot from behind a closed door without asking the “intruder” to identify themselves.
Here are some more…
Here’s the case I started talking about, the 5 year old who shot his three year old sister with a child-sized (but real) rifle that was left, loaded, lying in the living room for him to play with. No sanction or punishment for the parents. Since the state doesn’t think they did anything wrong, I guess they can leave that rifle loaded in their living room every day now.
Here’s a genuis who “accidentally” threw his gun into a bonfire and SURPRISE! It shot him and his buddy. “No criminal activity” though.
Here’s a grandmother who shot her 7 year old grandson because she “thought” he was an intruder. “Thinking” is easy when you shoot from behind a closed door without asking the “intruder” to identify themselves.
Here are some more…
Here’s the case I started talking about, the 5 year old who shot his three year old sister with a child-sized (but real) rifle that was left, loaded, lying in the living room for him to play with. No sanction or punishment for the parents. Since the state doesn’t think they did anything wrong, I guess they can leave that rifle loaded in their living room every day now.
Here’s a genuis who “accidentally” threw his gun into a bonfire and SURPRISE! It shot him and his buddy. “No criminal activity” though.
Here’s a grandmother who shot her 7 year old grandson because she “thought” he was an intruder. “Thinking” is easy when you shoot from behind a closed door without asking the “intruder” to identify themselves.
Here’s a woman who shot a deputy that she thought was her son returning home after he had just shot and killed his father. Again with the importance of actually identifying your target BEFORE you shoot them (do they not teach this stuff at NRA safety classes?).
Here’s a brilliant woman who shot her husband while waving around his shiny new handgun to show it to her daughter on skype. It is so amazing how these guns “just go off”.
Here’s another genuis who decided to shoot, sight unseen and without any verbal confirmation, the “intruder” who was in his garage. Too bad it was his teenage daughter. Lord knows, no teenager has ever, in the history of the world, snuck out at night, so a shoot first policy without any effort to identify “intruders” seems like a brilliant idea.
I actually have a bunch more cases I could summarize and link to, but I need to go live my life, but yeah, there are plenty of cases of stupid gun owners who harm or kill people and face no legal sanction. It is really common actually.
Here’s a woman who shot a deputy that she thought was her son returning home after he had just shot and killed his father. Again with the importance of actually identifying your target BEFORE you shoot them (do they not teach this stuff at NRA safety classes?).
Here’s a brilliant woman who shot her husband while waving around his shiny new handgun to show it to her daughter on skype. It is so amazing how these guns “just go off”.
Here’s another genuis who decided to shoot, sight unseen and without any verbal confirmation, the “intruder” who was in his garage. Too bad it was his teenage daughter. Lord knows, no teenager has ever, in the history of the world, snuck out at night, so a shoot first policy without any effort to identify “intruders” seems like a brilliant idea.
I actually have a bunch more cases I could summarize and link to, but I need to go live my life, but yeah, there are plenty of cases of stupid gun owners who harm or kill people and face no legal sanction. It is really common actually.
Here’s a woman who shot a deputy that she thought was her son returning home after he had just shot and killed his father. Again with the importance of actually identifying your target BEFORE you shoot them (do they not teach this stuff at NRA safety classes?).
Here’s a brilliant woman who shot her husband while waving around his shiny new handgun to show it to her daughter on skype. It is so amazing how these guns “just go off”.
Here’s another genuis who decided to shoot, sight unseen and without any verbal confirmation, the “intruder” who was in his garage. Too bad it was his teenage daughter. Lord knows, no teenager has ever, in the history of the world, snuck out at night, so a shoot first policy without any effort to identify “intruders” seems like a brilliant idea.
I actually have a bunch more cases I could summarize and link to, but I need to go live my life, but yeah, there are plenty of cases of stupid gun owners who harm or kill people and face no legal sanction. It is really common actually.
What happened to local control
Incorporation.
That being said, I’m not necessarily against any restriction of carrying a firearm. Nor entirely against the idea of local gun controls.
Whether or not local governance is, in general, preferable (and I believe it typically is), the patchwork of state and local gun laws, and accompanying penalties can be a problem for otherwise responsible gun owners.
Recognizing that doesn’t necessarily force a loss of local control. It’s just something that’s been told to me by several friends, and I thought it was worth bringing up.
What happened to local control
Incorporation.
That being said, I’m not necessarily against any restriction of carrying a firearm. Nor entirely against the idea of local gun controls.
Whether or not local governance is, in general, preferable (and I believe it typically is), the patchwork of state and local gun laws, and accompanying penalties can be a problem for otherwise responsible gun owners.
Recognizing that doesn’t necessarily force a loss of local control. It’s just something that’s been told to me by several friends, and I thought it was worth bringing up.
What happened to local control
Incorporation.
That being said, I’m not necessarily against any restriction of carrying a firearm. Nor entirely against the idea of local gun controls.
Whether or not local governance is, in general, preferable (and I believe it typically is), the patchwork of state and local gun laws, and accompanying penalties can be a problem for otherwise responsible gun owners.
Recognizing that doesn’t necessarily force a loss of local control. It’s just something that’s been told to me by several friends, and I thought it was worth bringing up.
Again with the importance of actually identifying your target BEFORE you shoot them (do they not teach this stuff at NRA safety classes?).
Well, they certainly used to, back in the day when I took one of their classes. But then, that was back when the NRA’s focus was on gun safety, rather than fear-mongering. (To the point that they even supported gun control legislation. How things have changed….)
Again with the importance of actually identifying your target BEFORE you shoot them (do they not teach this stuff at NRA safety classes?).
Well, they certainly used to, back in the day when I took one of their classes. But then, that was back when the NRA’s focus was on gun safety, rather than fear-mongering. (To the point that they even supported gun control legislation. How things have changed….)
Again with the importance of actually identifying your target BEFORE you shoot them (do they not teach this stuff at NRA safety classes?).
Well, they certainly used to, back in the day when I took one of their classes. But then, that was back when the NRA’s focus was on gun safety, rather than fear-mongering. (To the point that they even supported gun control legislation. How things have changed….)
thompson: …otherwise responsible gun owners
Most of the morons in Turb’s examples would have called themselves “responsible gun owners” and dared you or me to say otherwise. Probably still would.
“Responsible gun owner” is often a meaningless brand name and nothing more.
–TP
thompson: …otherwise responsible gun owners
Most of the morons in Turb’s examples would have called themselves “responsible gun owners” and dared you or me to say otherwise. Probably still would.
“Responsible gun owner” is often a meaningless brand name and nothing more.
–TP
thompson: …otherwise responsible gun owners
Most of the morons in Turb’s examples would have called themselves “responsible gun owners” and dared you or me to say otherwise. Probably still would.
“Responsible gun owner” is often a meaningless brand name and nothing more.
–TP
“Responsible gun owner” is often a meaningless brand name and nothing more.
Fair enough. However, its also often an apt description. Expanding on Shaneen Allen case, which I linked above, Radley Balko had this to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/
Allen is a black single mother. She has two kids. She has no prior criminal record. Before her arrest, she worked as a phlebobotomist. After she was robbed two times in the span of about a year, she purchased the gun to protect herself and her family. There is zero evidence that Allen intended to use the gun for any other purpose. Yet Allen was arrested. She spent 40 days in jail before she was released on bail. She’s now facing a felony charge that, if convicted, would bring a three-year mandatory minimum prison term.
“Responsible gun owner” is often a meaningless brand name and nothing more.
Fair enough. However, its also often an apt description. Expanding on Shaneen Allen case, which I linked above, Radley Balko had this to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/
Allen is a black single mother. She has two kids. She has no prior criminal record. Before her arrest, she worked as a phlebobotomist. After she was robbed two times in the span of about a year, she purchased the gun to protect herself and her family. There is zero evidence that Allen intended to use the gun for any other purpose. Yet Allen was arrested. She spent 40 days in jail before she was released on bail. She’s now facing a felony charge that, if convicted, would bring a three-year mandatory minimum prison term.
“Responsible gun owner” is often a meaningless brand name and nothing more.
Fair enough. However, its also often an apt description. Expanding on Shaneen Allen case, which I linked above, Radley Balko had this to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/
Allen is a black single mother. She has two kids. She has no prior criminal record. Before her arrest, she worked as a phlebobotomist. After she was robbed two times in the span of about a year, she purchased the gun to protect herself and her family. There is zero evidence that Allen intended to use the gun for any other purpose. Yet Allen was arrested. She spent 40 days in jail before she was released on bail. She’s now facing a felony charge that, if convicted, would bring a three-year mandatory minimum prison term.
I would bet that exactly NO gun owners would characterize themselves as “irresponsible gun owners.” Does anyone here doubt that?
Whether someone else would think them responsible folks is a different story.
I would bet that exactly NO gun owners would characterize themselves as “irresponsible gun owners.” Does anyone here doubt that?
Whether someone else would think them responsible folks is a different story.
I would bet that exactly NO gun owners would characterize themselves as “irresponsible gun owners.” Does anyone here doubt that?
Whether someone else would think them responsible folks is a different story.
thompson: re Shaneen Allen case:
and PA has arrested people coming from NJ with bottles of wine that one cannot buy in PA liquor stores. Which is nonsensical, but not quit at the level of ‘dry counties’ in TN and elsewhere.
Just a good think that Ms. Allen didn’t try to pump her own gas in NJ, or the full power of the state would come down on her.
Federalism is messy, no argument there. Want to simplify? Well, first get rid of the folks that scream about ‘States Rights’ at every opportunity.
thompson: re Shaneen Allen case:
and PA has arrested people coming from NJ with bottles of wine that one cannot buy in PA liquor stores. Which is nonsensical, but not quit at the level of ‘dry counties’ in TN and elsewhere.
Just a good think that Ms. Allen didn’t try to pump her own gas in NJ, or the full power of the state would come down on her.
Federalism is messy, no argument there. Want to simplify? Well, first get rid of the folks that scream about ‘States Rights’ at every opportunity.
thompson: re Shaneen Allen case:
and PA has arrested people coming from NJ with bottles of wine that one cannot buy in PA liquor stores. Which is nonsensical, but not quit at the level of ‘dry counties’ in TN and elsewhere.
Just a good think that Ms. Allen didn’t try to pump her own gas in NJ, or the full power of the state would come down on her.
Federalism is messy, no argument there. Want to simplify? Well, first get rid of the folks that scream about ‘States Rights’ at every opportunity.
Given that the vast, vast majority of gun owners never so much as wound anybody, let alone kill anybody, why shouldn’t they claim to be responsible?
“history starts exactly when you say it does, and not a moment sooner. got it.”
Seems to me your ‘history’ skips over the proximate cause of Martin being shot: His sucker punching and then delivering a beatdown to Zimmerman.
Yeah, yeah, “stalking”, yada yada yada. As though Zimmerman didn’t have as much or more right to be there as Martin. As though simply walking near somebody was cause for an assault.
It’s a darned good thing your average gun owner has a clearer sense of when you’re justified in resorting to violence than THAT.
Given that the vast, vast majority of gun owners never so much as wound anybody, let alone kill anybody, why shouldn’t they claim to be responsible?
“history starts exactly when you say it does, and not a moment sooner. got it.”
Seems to me your ‘history’ skips over the proximate cause of Martin being shot: His sucker punching and then delivering a beatdown to Zimmerman.
Yeah, yeah, “stalking”, yada yada yada. As though Zimmerman didn’t have as much or more right to be there as Martin. As though simply walking near somebody was cause for an assault.
It’s a darned good thing your average gun owner has a clearer sense of when you’re justified in resorting to violence than THAT.
Given that the vast, vast majority of gun owners never so much as wound anybody, let alone kill anybody, why shouldn’t they claim to be responsible?
“history starts exactly when you say it does, and not a moment sooner. got it.”
Seems to me your ‘history’ skips over the proximate cause of Martin being shot: His sucker punching and then delivering a beatdown to Zimmerman.
Yeah, yeah, “stalking”, yada yada yada. As though Zimmerman didn’t have as much or more right to be there as Martin. As though simply walking near somebody was cause for an assault.
It’s a darned good thing your average gun owner has a clearer sense of when you’re justified in resorting to violence than THAT.
Yeah, yeah, “stalking”, yada yada yada
morally bankrupt.
Yeah, yeah, “stalking”, yada yada yada
morally bankrupt.
Yeah, yeah, “stalking”, yada yada yada
morally bankrupt.
Last I looked, stalking was a criminal offense. If Zimmerman had merely followed Martin, it wouldn’t have met the legal definition (in Florida). But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Now you can contend that the legal definition is poorly drawn. I might even agree with you. But for the moment, it is the law. Which means that, since Zimmerman was indeed following Martin, not merely happening to be in the same place, he may well not have had a “right to be there”.
Last I looked, stalking was a criminal offense. If Zimmerman had merely followed Martin, it wouldn’t have met the legal definition (in Florida). But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Now you can contend that the legal definition is poorly drawn. I might even agree with you. But for the moment, it is the law. Which means that, since Zimmerman was indeed following Martin, not merely happening to be in the same place, he may well not have had a “right to be there”.
Last I looked, stalking was a criminal offense. If Zimmerman had merely followed Martin, it wouldn’t have met the legal definition (in Florida). But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Now you can contend that the legal definition is poorly drawn. I might even agree with you. But for the moment, it is the law. Which means that, since Zimmerman was indeed following Martin, not merely happening to be in the same place, he may well not have had a “right to be there”.
As though simply walking near somebody was cause for an assault.
One of the most disingenuous, mealy-mouthed, chicken-sh*t comments I’ve ever read, anywhere.
Do you really want to be that guy?
But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Justifiable use of force in FL.
If Martin reasonably believed that Zimmerman meant him harm, he was justified in beating the crap out of him, under FL law.
End of story.
My suggestion is that we quit dragging Trayvon Martin’s poor dead corpse out of the grave and leave the poor kid the hell alone.
Zimmerman hardly merits comment, he demonstrates his own character and credibility on a regular basis.
thompson and Marty, thanks for your thoughtful comments about why open carry might be useful.
And yeah, thompson, calm the hell down, will ya? 🙂
I’m still puzzled as to why so many people feel the need to carry a firearm around with them in their daily lives. It seems really sad to me, and it makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with us as a people.
In most places with functional governments, people don’t feel the need to go about their daily lives carrying firearms. We appear to be a remarkably fearful and paranoid people.
I’m not talking about rights, or taking anything away from people, I’m just saying we might want to reflect on why so many people feel like they have to have a deadly weapon on their person to go buy a quart of milk.
To Turb’s point, my understanding is that the number of people killed or injured each year due to some kind of accidental discharge, negligent discharge, or other misuse of a firearm, numbers in the mid-teens of thousands.
To my knowledge, not many of those incidents result in any criminal penalty, or even any penalty at all.
I’d be in favor of a mandatory insurance program for firearm ownership as a simple way to let the market weed out the knuckleheads, but politically that will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever fly.
Liberty!
As though simply walking near somebody was cause for an assault.
One of the most disingenuous, mealy-mouthed, chicken-sh*t comments I’ve ever read, anywhere.
Do you really want to be that guy?
But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Justifiable use of force in FL.
If Martin reasonably believed that Zimmerman meant him harm, he was justified in beating the crap out of him, under FL law.
End of story.
My suggestion is that we quit dragging Trayvon Martin’s poor dead corpse out of the grave and leave the poor kid the hell alone.
Zimmerman hardly merits comment, he demonstrates his own character and credibility on a regular basis.
thompson and Marty, thanks for your thoughtful comments about why open carry might be useful.
And yeah, thompson, calm the hell down, will ya? 🙂
I’m still puzzled as to why so many people feel the need to carry a firearm around with them in their daily lives. It seems really sad to me, and it makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with us as a people.
In most places with functional governments, people don’t feel the need to go about their daily lives carrying firearms. We appear to be a remarkably fearful and paranoid people.
I’m not talking about rights, or taking anything away from people, I’m just saying we might want to reflect on why so many people feel like they have to have a deadly weapon on their person to go buy a quart of milk.
To Turb’s point, my understanding is that the number of people killed or injured each year due to some kind of accidental discharge, negligent discharge, or other misuse of a firearm, numbers in the mid-teens of thousands.
To my knowledge, not many of those incidents result in any criminal penalty, or even any penalty at all.
I’d be in favor of a mandatory insurance program for firearm ownership as a simple way to let the market weed out the knuckleheads, but politically that will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever fly.
Liberty!
As though simply walking near somebody was cause for an assault.
One of the most disingenuous, mealy-mouthed, chicken-sh*t comments I’ve ever read, anywhere.
Do you really want to be that guy?
But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Justifiable use of force in FL.
If Martin reasonably believed that Zimmerman meant him harm, he was justified in beating the crap out of him, under FL law.
End of story.
My suggestion is that we quit dragging Trayvon Martin’s poor dead corpse out of the grave and leave the poor kid the hell alone.
Zimmerman hardly merits comment, he demonstrates his own character and credibility on a regular basis.
thompson and Marty, thanks for your thoughtful comments about why open carry might be useful.
And yeah, thompson, calm the hell down, will ya? 🙂
I’m still puzzled as to why so many people feel the need to carry a firearm around with them in their daily lives. It seems really sad to me, and it makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with us as a people.
In most places with functional governments, people don’t feel the need to go about their daily lives carrying firearms. We appear to be a remarkably fearful and paranoid people.
I’m not talking about rights, or taking anything away from people, I’m just saying we might want to reflect on why so many people feel like they have to have a deadly weapon on their person to go buy a quart of milk.
To Turb’s point, my understanding is that the number of people killed or injured each year due to some kind of accidental discharge, negligent discharge, or other misuse of a firearm, numbers in the mid-teens of thousands.
To my knowledge, not many of those incidents result in any criminal penalty, or even any penalty at all.
I’d be in favor of a mandatory insurance program for firearm ownership as a simple way to let the market weed out the knuckleheads, but politically that will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever fly.
Liberty!
well, that was cryptic.
take two.
But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Grounds for the use of force in FL.
If Martin thought Zimmerman meant to harm him, he was within the law in beating the crap out of him.
Period.
Can we please leave Trayvon Martin the hell alone now? He’s dead.
Zimmerman’s making his own bed, he hardly merits comment either.
“mid-teens of thousands” is, following on Turb’s comment, the number of people injured or killed by accidental, negligent, or other unintended discharge of firearms in the US per year.
well, that was cryptic.
take two.
But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Grounds for the use of force in FL.
If Martin thought Zimmerman meant to harm him, he was within the law in beating the crap out of him.
Period.
Can we please leave Trayvon Martin the hell alone now? He’s dead.
Zimmerman’s making his own bed, he hardly merits comment either.
“mid-teens of thousands” is, following on Turb’s comment, the number of people injured or killed by accidental, negligent, or other unintended discharge of firearms in the US per year.
well, that was cryptic.
take two.
But when he followed him, lost him, and then found him again and resumed following him, that probably does meet the definition.
Grounds for the use of force in FL.
If Martin thought Zimmerman meant to harm him, he was within the law in beating the crap out of him.
Period.
Can we please leave Trayvon Martin the hell alone now? He’s dead.
Zimmerman’s making his own bed, he hardly merits comment either.
“mid-teens of thousands” is, following on Turb’s comment, the number of people injured or killed by accidental, negligent, or other unintended discharge of firearms in the US per year.
I’ve always been fascinated by Brett’s understanding of that incident, whereby Stand Your Ground laws are a privilege afforded only to gun owners…
I’ve always been fascinated by Brett’s understanding of that incident, whereby Stand Your Ground laws are a privilege afforded only to gun owners…
I’ve always been fascinated by Brett’s understanding of that incident, whereby Stand Your Ground laws are a privilege afforded only to gun owners…
“Last I looked, stalking was a criminal offense.”
“Florida’s stalking law defines the crime as repeated harassment that creates a credible threat of harm.”
It’s basically impossible, under Florida law, or the law of any state I’m familiar with, to be guilty of “stalking” within the space of a few minutes. What we have here is the fallacy of equivocation, trying to apply the legal implications of the crime of “stalking”, to the dictionary definition, which essentially means little more than “following”.
But, of course, as was established in court, Zimmerman followed Martin for a short while, stopped, and was just standing around waiting for the cops to show up when Martin snuck up on him and attacked him. Zimmerman did nothing, NOTHING, that could legally justify Martin’s violence.
By contrast, Martin’s violent attack on Zimmerman was quite clearly justification for self defense.
As I say, thankfully the vast majority of gun owners have a better idea of when violence is justified, than anybody who thinks Martin was even vaguely justified in his assault on Zimmerman does.
But Zimmerman has been appointed the role of bad guy, and the left are not going to let the facts get in the way of using him as a boogie man.
Morally bankrupt? Yeah, I think that neatly characterizes the people trying to make Martin into some kind of innocent victim, and Zimmerman into a villain.
Reality challenged, too.
“Last I looked, stalking was a criminal offense.”
“Florida’s stalking law defines the crime as repeated harassment that creates a credible threat of harm.”
It’s basically impossible, under Florida law, or the law of any state I’m familiar with, to be guilty of “stalking” within the space of a few minutes. What we have here is the fallacy of equivocation, trying to apply the legal implications of the crime of “stalking”, to the dictionary definition, which essentially means little more than “following”.
But, of course, as was established in court, Zimmerman followed Martin for a short while, stopped, and was just standing around waiting for the cops to show up when Martin snuck up on him and attacked him. Zimmerman did nothing, NOTHING, that could legally justify Martin’s violence.
By contrast, Martin’s violent attack on Zimmerman was quite clearly justification for self defense.
As I say, thankfully the vast majority of gun owners have a better idea of when violence is justified, than anybody who thinks Martin was even vaguely justified in his assault on Zimmerman does.
But Zimmerman has been appointed the role of bad guy, and the left are not going to let the facts get in the way of using him as a boogie man.
Morally bankrupt? Yeah, I think that neatly characterizes the people trying to make Martin into some kind of innocent victim, and Zimmerman into a villain.
Reality challenged, too.
“Last I looked, stalking was a criminal offense.”
“Florida’s stalking law defines the crime as repeated harassment that creates a credible threat of harm.”
It’s basically impossible, under Florida law, or the law of any state I’m familiar with, to be guilty of “stalking” within the space of a few minutes. What we have here is the fallacy of equivocation, trying to apply the legal implications of the crime of “stalking”, to the dictionary definition, which essentially means little more than “following”.
But, of course, as was established in court, Zimmerman followed Martin for a short while, stopped, and was just standing around waiting for the cops to show up when Martin snuck up on him and attacked him. Zimmerman did nothing, NOTHING, that could legally justify Martin’s violence.
By contrast, Martin’s violent attack on Zimmerman was quite clearly justification for self defense.
As I say, thankfully the vast majority of gun owners have a better idea of when violence is justified, than anybody who thinks Martin was even vaguely justified in his assault on Zimmerman does.
But Zimmerman has been appointed the role of bad guy, and the left are not going to let the facts get in the way of using him as a boogie man.
Morally bankrupt? Yeah, I think that neatly characterizes the people trying to make Martin into some kind of innocent victim, and Zimmerman into a villain.
Reality challenged, too.
“whereby Stand Your Ground laws are a privilege afforded only to gun owners…”
Or, not afforded to attackers at the very moment they’re attempting to beat somebody to death.
You don’t understand “stand your ground” laws, if you think they apply to somebody who doubles back and attacks somebody else, in a place where that somebody else is entitled to be.
“whereby Stand Your Ground laws are a privilege afforded only to gun owners…”
Or, not afforded to attackers at the very moment they’re attempting to beat somebody to death.
You don’t understand “stand your ground” laws, if you think they apply to somebody who doubles back and attacks somebody else, in a place where that somebody else is entitled to be.
“whereby Stand Your Ground laws are a privilege afforded only to gun owners…”
Or, not afforded to attackers at the very moment they’re attempting to beat somebody to death.
You don’t understand “stand your ground” laws, if you think they apply to somebody who doubles back and attacks somebody else, in a place where that somebody else is entitled to be.
Until libruls openly carry in vast numbers, they have lost this one*, but we do have low flush toilets and energy saving light bulbs.
Win some, lose some, I guess.
*remember what the sainted Ronnie Raygun did when the Panthers carried openly. The coward.
Until libruls openly carry in vast numbers, they have lost this one*, but we do have low flush toilets and energy saving light bulbs.
Win some, lose some, I guess.
*remember what the sainted Ronnie Raygun did when the Panthers carried openly. The coward.
Until libruls openly carry in vast numbers, they have lost this one*, but we do have low flush toilets and energy saving light bulbs.
Win some, lose some, I guess.
*remember what the sainted Ronnie Raygun did when the Panthers carried openly. The coward.
Hey, Brett: Where were your brave liberty loving gun totin’ buddies when Raygun was shitting his pants over a couple of black guys carrying rifles?
Hey, Brett: Where were your brave liberty loving gun totin’ buddies when Raygun was shitting his pants over a couple of black guys carrying rifles?
Hey, Brett: Where were your brave liberty loving gun totin’ buddies when Raygun was shitting his pants over a couple of black guys carrying rifles?
You don’t understand “stand your ground” laws, if you think they apply to somebody who doubles back and attacks somebody else, in a place where that somebody else is entitled to be.
You don’t understand human nature if you think Zimmerman would have described the events differently if that’s not what happened. What was established in court was that Zimmerman’s testimony of the events that led up to the shooting could not be challenged, certainly not to the standard required for him to face criminal penalty for whatever may have transpired. In no way, shape, or form did the court establish what happened. All they established was that there was not evidence beyond reasonable doubt that what Zimmerman claimed to have happened, didn’t. That’s light years away from what you’re claiming to have been established. Only two people ever knew with any certainty what happened that night, and one of them is too dead to talk about it. So spare me your high-handed moral condescension, if you please, and likewise your glib declarations that not agreeing with your presumptions makes us “reality challenged”.
You don’t understand “stand your ground” laws, if you think they apply to somebody who doubles back and attacks somebody else, in a place where that somebody else is entitled to be.
You don’t understand human nature if you think Zimmerman would have described the events differently if that’s not what happened. What was established in court was that Zimmerman’s testimony of the events that led up to the shooting could not be challenged, certainly not to the standard required for him to face criminal penalty for whatever may have transpired. In no way, shape, or form did the court establish what happened. All they established was that there was not evidence beyond reasonable doubt that what Zimmerman claimed to have happened, didn’t. That’s light years away from what you’re claiming to have been established. Only two people ever knew with any certainty what happened that night, and one of them is too dead to talk about it. So spare me your high-handed moral condescension, if you please, and likewise your glib declarations that not agreeing with your presumptions makes us “reality challenged”.
You don’t understand “stand your ground” laws, if you think they apply to somebody who doubles back and attacks somebody else, in a place where that somebody else is entitled to be.
You don’t understand human nature if you think Zimmerman would have described the events differently if that’s not what happened. What was established in court was that Zimmerman’s testimony of the events that led up to the shooting could not be challenged, certainly not to the standard required for him to face criminal penalty for whatever may have transpired. In no way, shape, or form did the court establish what happened. All they established was that there was not evidence beyond reasonable doubt that what Zimmerman claimed to have happened, didn’t. That’s light years away from what you’re claiming to have been established. Only two people ever knew with any certainty what happened that night, and one of them is too dead to talk about it. So spare me your high-handed moral condescension, if you please, and likewise your glib declarations that not agreeing with your presumptions makes us “reality challenged”.
Another victory for “responsible gun owners”?
Another victory for “responsible gun owners”?
Another victory for “responsible gun owners”?
The Martin/Zimmerman case wasn’t tried based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law.
The Martin/Zimmerman case wasn’t tried based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law.
The Martin/Zimmerman case wasn’t tried based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law.
I’ve always been fascinated by Brett’s understanding of that incident
Not me.
Zimmerman followed Martin for a short while, stopped, and was just standing around waiting for the cops to show up when Martin snuck up on him and attacked him.
Were you there?
If you weren’t, you are pulling this out of your ass.
I’ll answer my own question:
You weren’t, so you’re pulling this out of your ass. Or, more accurately, Zimmerman’s.
If you want to bring Zimmerman up as an example of why people should be allowed to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise, with or without a permit, have at it. It’ll win about as many hearts and minds as the “let’s all open carry to help people get over their phobias” thing.
I.e., it’ll just brand you as a flaming asshole gun freak nut job.
Better yet, maybe we should give the Martin/Zimmerman thing a rest. I don’t think it’s going to end anyplace other than where it always ends.
Which is no place useful.
I’ve always been fascinated by Brett’s understanding of that incident
Not me.
Zimmerman followed Martin for a short while, stopped, and was just standing around waiting for the cops to show up when Martin snuck up on him and attacked him.
Were you there?
If you weren’t, you are pulling this out of your ass.
I’ll answer my own question:
You weren’t, so you’re pulling this out of your ass. Or, more accurately, Zimmerman’s.
If you want to bring Zimmerman up as an example of why people should be allowed to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise, with or without a permit, have at it. It’ll win about as many hearts and minds as the “let’s all open carry to help people get over their phobias” thing.
I.e., it’ll just brand you as a flaming asshole gun freak nut job.
Better yet, maybe we should give the Martin/Zimmerman thing a rest. I don’t think it’s going to end anyplace other than where it always ends.
Which is no place useful.
I’ve always been fascinated by Brett’s understanding of that incident
Not me.
Zimmerman followed Martin for a short while, stopped, and was just standing around waiting for the cops to show up when Martin snuck up on him and attacked him.
Were you there?
If you weren’t, you are pulling this out of your ass.
I’ll answer my own question:
You weren’t, so you’re pulling this out of your ass. Or, more accurately, Zimmerman’s.
If you want to bring Zimmerman up as an example of why people should be allowed to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise, with or without a permit, have at it. It’ll win about as many hearts and minds as the “let’s all open carry to help people get over their phobias” thing.
I.e., it’ll just brand you as a flaming asshole gun freak nut job.
Better yet, maybe we should give the Martin/Zimmerman thing a rest. I don’t think it’s going to end anyplace other than where it always ends.
Which is no place useful.
Given that the vast, vast majority of gun owners never so much as wound anybody, let alone kill anybody, why shouldn’t they claim to be responsible?
I’m not really buying this “vast majority” claim. I mean, we live in a culture where gun owners face no consequence for all sorts of horrific negligence. You can see the nine cases I cited above for examples. Or you could look at this paper:
Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen each year from individuals and commercial sellers. By definition, they all go directly to criminals. A substantial percentage of guns used in crime were previously stolen. Nevertheless, the common law has conferred near complete immunity on gun owners and sellers who fail to secure guns from theft when they are subsequently used to cause harm. This occurs despite frequent judicial pronouncements that the risk of firearms demands the highest degree of care in their use and keeping. To accomplish this result, courts ignore or mischaracterize fundamental scope of liability principles, rarely even reaching the question of whether reasonable care was exercised.
You can take your handgun, leave it in your unlocked car parked on a city street, and when criminals break in, take your weapon, and use it to commit a crime, you face ZERO liability. You have no legal obligation to secure your weapons at all. This is…not responsible. This is madness.
Compare how we treat swimming pools or trampolines to guns. You can’t just leave an unsecured swimming pool lying around in most states because it is an attractive nuisance and you can be held responsible if a random child finds it and drowns in it. You have to secure it somehow. But you absolutely can just leave your guns lying around with ZERO liability. Why do gun owners have so much more freedom than swimming pool owners or car owners or trampoline owners?
Given that the vast, vast majority of gun owners never so much as wound anybody, let alone kill anybody, why shouldn’t they claim to be responsible?
I’m not really buying this “vast majority” claim. I mean, we live in a culture where gun owners face no consequence for all sorts of horrific negligence. You can see the nine cases I cited above for examples. Or you could look at this paper:
Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen each year from individuals and commercial sellers. By definition, they all go directly to criminals. A substantial percentage of guns used in crime were previously stolen. Nevertheless, the common law has conferred near complete immunity on gun owners and sellers who fail to secure guns from theft when they are subsequently used to cause harm. This occurs despite frequent judicial pronouncements that the risk of firearms demands the highest degree of care in their use and keeping. To accomplish this result, courts ignore or mischaracterize fundamental scope of liability principles, rarely even reaching the question of whether reasonable care was exercised.
You can take your handgun, leave it in your unlocked car parked on a city street, and when criminals break in, take your weapon, and use it to commit a crime, you face ZERO liability. You have no legal obligation to secure your weapons at all. This is…not responsible. This is madness.
Compare how we treat swimming pools or trampolines to guns. You can’t just leave an unsecured swimming pool lying around in most states because it is an attractive nuisance and you can be held responsible if a random child finds it and drowns in it. You have to secure it somehow. But you absolutely can just leave your guns lying around with ZERO liability. Why do gun owners have so much more freedom than swimming pool owners or car owners or trampoline owners?
Given that the vast, vast majority of gun owners never so much as wound anybody, let alone kill anybody, why shouldn’t they claim to be responsible?
I’m not really buying this “vast majority” claim. I mean, we live in a culture where gun owners face no consequence for all sorts of horrific negligence. You can see the nine cases I cited above for examples. Or you could look at this paper:
Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen each year from individuals and commercial sellers. By definition, they all go directly to criminals. A substantial percentage of guns used in crime were previously stolen. Nevertheless, the common law has conferred near complete immunity on gun owners and sellers who fail to secure guns from theft when they are subsequently used to cause harm. This occurs despite frequent judicial pronouncements that the risk of firearms demands the highest degree of care in their use and keeping. To accomplish this result, courts ignore or mischaracterize fundamental scope of liability principles, rarely even reaching the question of whether reasonable care was exercised.
You can take your handgun, leave it in your unlocked car parked on a city street, and when criminals break in, take your weapon, and use it to commit a crime, you face ZERO liability. You have no legal obligation to secure your weapons at all. This is…not responsible. This is madness.
Compare how we treat swimming pools or trampolines to guns. You can’t just leave an unsecured swimming pool lying around in most states because it is an attractive nuisance and you can be held responsible if a random child finds it and drowns in it. You have to secure it somehow. But you absolutely can just leave your guns lying around with ZERO liability. Why do gun owners have so much more freedom than swimming pool owners or car owners or trampoline owners?
Because there is no constitutional right to a swimming pool? That’s the only reason I can see why there is no liability for leaving an “attractive nuisance” unmsecured.
Because there is no constitutional right to a swimming pool? That’s the only reason I can see why there is no liability for leaving an “attractive nuisance” unmsecured.
Because there is no constitutional right to a swimming pool? That’s the only reason I can see why there is no liability for leaving an “attractive nuisance” unmsecured.
The right to keep and bear arms does not translate into an unlimited right in which the government can’t regulate any aspect of firearms ownership. All rights, including the 2A, can be limited.
The right to keep and bear arms does not translate into an unlimited right in which the government can’t regulate any aspect of firearms ownership. All rights, including the 2A, can be limited.
The right to keep and bear arms does not translate into an unlimited right in which the government can’t regulate any aspect of firearms ownership. All rights, including the 2A, can be limited.
Obviously, we’re not going to agree about the Zimmerman case, thankfully the court cared about the evidence.
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
Obviously, we’re not going to agree about the Zimmerman case, thankfully the court cared about the evidence.
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
Obviously, we’re not going to agree about the Zimmerman case, thankfully the court cared about the evidence.
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
Not sure what that link was all about Brett, but if you mean the NSA thing, then I am indeed indebted to Rand Paul in exact proportion to the number of phone calls I made to arrange terrorist activities, between Sat. midnight and whenever the NSA powers re-start, probably sometime today.
That’s assuming that the NSA actually pays attention to little details like “the 4th amendment” and “federal law”, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Now, if Mr. Paul introduces legislation to zero out the NSA budget, encourage prosecution of NSA wiretappers and their private sector telecom enablers, and provide a legal basis for people to sue the NSA/telecoms for illegal wiretaps, that would help my opinion of Mr. Paul.
He seems more interested in grandstanding, however.
Not sure what that link was all about Brett, but if you mean the NSA thing, then I am indeed indebted to Rand Paul in exact proportion to the number of phone calls I made to arrange terrorist activities, between Sat. midnight and whenever the NSA powers re-start, probably sometime today.
That’s assuming that the NSA actually pays attention to little details like “the 4th amendment” and “federal law”, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Now, if Mr. Paul introduces legislation to zero out the NSA budget, encourage prosecution of NSA wiretappers and their private sector telecom enablers, and provide a legal basis for people to sue the NSA/telecoms for illegal wiretaps, that would help my opinion of Mr. Paul.
He seems more interested in grandstanding, however.
Not sure what that link was all about Brett, but if you mean the NSA thing, then I am indeed indebted to Rand Paul in exact proportion to the number of phone calls I made to arrange terrorist activities, between Sat. midnight and whenever the NSA powers re-start, probably sometime today.
That’s assuming that the NSA actually pays attention to little details like “the 4th amendment” and “federal law”, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Now, if Mr. Paul introduces legislation to zero out the NSA budget, encourage prosecution of NSA wiretappers and their private sector telecom enablers, and provide a legal basis for people to sue the NSA/telecoms for illegal wiretaps, that would help my opinion of Mr. Paul.
He seems more interested in grandstanding, however.
You may call it grandstanding, but as of now the Patriot act was NOT renewed, and when it does inevitably get renewed, it’s likely to be significantly less obnoxious than Obama, McConnell, and Bohner wanted it to be.
Though still, of course, obnoxious.
Judging by exactly how little evidence they were able to present that the NSA has actually been helping fight terrorism, I’m thinking the people making those phone calls you cited are about the only folks who didn’t benefit.
The real benefit will come to everybody who doesn’t get their 4th amendment protections circumvented by NSA fueled “parallel construction”.
You may call it grandstanding, but as of now the Patriot act was NOT renewed, and when it does inevitably get renewed, it’s likely to be significantly less obnoxious than Obama, McConnell, and Bohner wanted it to be.
Though still, of course, obnoxious.
Judging by exactly how little evidence they were able to present that the NSA has actually been helping fight terrorism, I’m thinking the people making those phone calls you cited are about the only folks who didn’t benefit.
The real benefit will come to everybody who doesn’t get their 4th amendment protections circumvented by NSA fueled “parallel construction”.
You may call it grandstanding, but as of now the Patriot act was NOT renewed, and when it does inevitably get renewed, it’s likely to be significantly less obnoxious than Obama, McConnell, and Bohner wanted it to be.
Though still, of course, obnoxious.
Judging by exactly how little evidence they were able to present that the NSA has actually been helping fight terrorism, I’m thinking the people making those phone calls you cited are about the only folks who didn’t benefit.
The real benefit will come to everybody who doesn’t get their 4th amendment protections circumvented by NSA fueled “parallel construction”.
USA PATRIOT will be back, and as bad as ever. the votes are there, the desire is there.
good for Paul for trying, but his quasi-filibuster only worked in this case because he could help run out the clock. but now there’s no clock to run out and he doesn’t have 39 pals to enact a real filibuster. so, we’ll get PATRIOT 2, like it or not.
USA PATRIOT will be back, and as bad as ever. the votes are there, the desire is there.
good for Paul for trying, but his quasi-filibuster only worked in this case because he could help run out the clock. but now there’s no clock to run out and he doesn’t have 39 pals to enact a real filibuster. so, we’ll get PATRIOT 2, like it or not.
USA PATRIOT will be back, and as bad as ever. the votes are there, the desire is there.
good for Paul for trying, but his quasi-filibuster only worked in this case because he could help run out the clock. but now there’s no clock to run out and he doesn’t have 39 pals to enact a real filibuster. so, we’ll get PATRIOT 2, like it or not.
Even if he is grandstanding (who knew politicians did that?), at least he’s grandstanding about something most national-level politicians don’t have the sense or the guts to grandstand about, particularly Republicans.
I generally think he’s a bit of a loon, but one who gets some stuff right and doesn’t toe the party line when he’s at odds with most of the rest of the GOP.
Even if he is grandstanding (who knew politicians did that?), at least he’s grandstanding about something most national-level politicians don’t have the sense or the guts to grandstand about, particularly Republicans.
I generally think he’s a bit of a loon, but one who gets some stuff right and doesn’t toe the party line when he’s at odds with most of the rest of the GOP.
Even if he is grandstanding (who knew politicians did that?), at least he’s grandstanding about something most national-level politicians don’t have the sense or the guts to grandstand about, particularly Republicans.
I generally think he’s a bit of a loon, but one who gets some stuff right and doesn’t toe the party line when he’s at odds with most of the rest of the GOP.
IMO, sometimes you need a loon, because you need somebody who’s willing to fight even though they know their rep will be dragged through the mud. And that’s one trait loons reliably have.
The question that bothers me is, how many of the yes votes come from members who actually support the Patriot act, and how many from members who are scared about what the NSA might leak about them if they vote no?
IMO, sometimes you need a loon, because you need somebody who’s willing to fight even though they know their rep will be dragged through the mud. And that’s one trait loons reliably have.
The question that bothers me is, how many of the yes votes come from members who actually support the Patriot act, and how many from members who are scared about what the NSA might leak about them if they vote no?
IMO, sometimes you need a loon, because you need somebody who’s willing to fight even though they know their rep will be dragged through the mud. And that’s one trait loons reliably have.
The question that bothers me is, how many of the yes votes come from members who actually support the Patriot act, and how many from members who are scared about what the NSA might leak about them if they vote no?
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
arriviste.
How do you feel about Russell Feingold?
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
arriviste.
How do you feel about Russell Feingold?
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
arriviste.
How do you feel about Russell Feingold?
Generally negative, but it would be quite an accomplishment to get EVERYTHING wrong.
Generally negative, but it would be quite an accomplishment to get EVERYTHING wrong.
Generally negative, but it would be quite an accomplishment to get EVERYTHING wrong.
So, same/same.
So, same/same.
So, same/same.
If al Qaeda/ISIS/Stormfront murder as many Americans on U.S. soil as Paul, et al would murder if he became President by repealing Obamacare in addition to whatever ravages would be visited upon Medicare/Social Security, not to mention the free for all that would ensue as all anti-discrimination laws are swept from the books and/or not enforced, I won’t be indebted to him, he’ll owe me.
And my collections agents don’t f*ck around.
Regarding NSA data collections, he’s grandstanding, purely and simply. As President, he’d turn all government surveillance focus on to his and his father’s domestic enemies merely to protect his butt.
I like ice cream cones too, but when proffered by him, I’d expect to come down with e coli infections, salmonella, and tutti-frutti infestations, given the fact that the FDA would be off the job for the duration.
No thanks.
Plus, the sound of his grating voice alone for four years would foment armed rebellion.
If al Qaeda/ISIS/Stormfront murder as many Americans on U.S. soil as Paul, et al would murder if he became President by repealing Obamacare in addition to whatever ravages would be visited upon Medicare/Social Security, not to mention the free for all that would ensue as all anti-discrimination laws are swept from the books and/or not enforced, I won’t be indebted to him, he’ll owe me.
And my collections agents don’t f*ck around.
Regarding NSA data collections, he’s grandstanding, purely and simply. As President, he’d turn all government surveillance focus on to his and his father’s domestic enemies merely to protect his butt.
I like ice cream cones too, but when proffered by him, I’d expect to come down with e coli infections, salmonella, and tutti-frutti infestations, given the fact that the FDA would be off the job for the duration.
No thanks.
Plus, the sound of his grating voice alone for four years would foment armed rebellion.
If al Qaeda/ISIS/Stormfront murder as many Americans on U.S. soil as Paul, et al would murder if he became President by repealing Obamacare in addition to whatever ravages would be visited upon Medicare/Social Security, not to mention the free for all that would ensue as all anti-discrimination laws are swept from the books and/or not enforced, I won’t be indebted to him, he’ll owe me.
And my collections agents don’t f*ck around.
Regarding NSA data collections, he’s grandstanding, purely and simply. As President, he’d turn all government surveillance focus on to his and his father’s domestic enemies merely to protect his butt.
I like ice cream cones too, but when proffered by him, I’d expect to come down with e coli infections, salmonella, and tutti-frutti infestations, given the fact that the FDA would be off the job for the duration.
No thanks.
Plus, the sound of his grating voice alone for four years would foment armed rebellion.
If al Qaeda/ISIS/Stormfront murder as many Americans on U.S. soil as Paul, et al would murder if he became President by repealing Obamacare in addition to whatever ravages would be visited upon Medicare/Social Security, not to mention the free for all that would ensue as all anti-discrimination laws are swept from the books and/or not enforced, I won’t be indebted to him, he’ll owe me.
And my collections agents don’t f*ck around.
Regarding NSA data collections, he’s grandstanding, purely and simply. As President, he’d turn all government surveillance focus on to his and his father’s domestic enemies merely to protect his butt.
I like ice cream cones too, but when proffered by him, I’d expect to come down with e coli infections, salmonella, and tutti-frutti infestations, given the fact that the FDA would be off the job for the duration.
No thanks.
Plus, the sound of his grating voice alone for four years would foment armed rebellion.
If al Qaeda/ISIS/Stormfront murder as many Americans on U.S. soil as Paul, et al would murder if he became President by repealing Obamacare in addition to whatever ravages would be visited upon Medicare/Social Security, not to mention the free for all that would ensue as all anti-discrimination laws are swept from the books and/or not enforced, I won’t be indebted to him, he’ll owe me.
And my collections agents don’t f*ck around.
Regarding NSA data collections, he’s grandstanding, purely and simply. As President, he’d turn all government surveillance focus on to his and his father’s domestic enemies merely to protect his butt.
I like ice cream cones too, but when proffered by him, I’d expect to come down with e coli infections, salmonella, and tutti-frutti infestations, given the fact that the FDA would be off the job for the duration.
No thanks.
Plus, the sound of his grating voice alone for four years would foment armed rebellion.
If al Qaeda/ISIS/Stormfront murder as many Americans on U.S. soil as Paul, et al would murder if he became President by repealing Obamacare in addition to whatever ravages would be visited upon Medicare/Social Security, not to mention the free for all that would ensue as all anti-discrimination laws are swept from the books and/or not enforced, I won’t be indebted to him, he’ll owe me.
And my collections agents don’t f*ck around.
Regarding NSA data collections, he’s grandstanding, purely and simply. As President, he’d turn all government surveillance focus on to his and his father’s domestic enemies merely to protect his butt.
I like ice cream cones too, but when proffered by him, I’d expect to come down with e coli infections, salmonella, and tutti-frutti infestations, given the fact that the FDA would be off the job for the duration.
No thanks.
Plus, the sound of his grating voice alone for four years would foment armed rebellion.
Is there an echo in here?
Is there an echo in here?
Is there an echo in here?
My mouse automatically double clicks for some reason.
My mouse automatically double clicks for some reason.
My mouse automatically double clicks for some reason.
I’d sooner listen to these guys do the State of the Union:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJTzzVsUNAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY3ncbgbUYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpccpglnNf0
I’d sooner listen to these guys do the State of the Union:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJTzzVsUNAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY3ncbgbUYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpccpglnNf0
I’d sooner listen to these guys do the State of the Union:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJTzzVsUNAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY3ncbgbUYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpccpglnNf0
“Sometimes you need a loon …”
We need better loons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUt6mJGfGCw
“Sometimes you need a loon …”
We need better loons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUt6mJGfGCw
“Sometimes you need a loon …”
We need better loons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUt6mJGfGCw
I believe those congresscritters are less in fear of the NSA spilling the beans on them than of something happening and their vote getting used against them then (even if there is no actual connection). “He has voted for/against…” is a lethal tool in the hand of rivals (especilally on one’s own side). As long as this works in primaries, expect supreme cowardice of incumbents.
I believe those congresscritters are less in fear of the NSA spilling the beans on them than of something happening and their vote getting used against them then (even if there is no actual connection). “He has voted for/against…” is a lethal tool in the hand of rivals (especilally on one’s own side). As long as this works in primaries, expect supreme cowardice of incumbents.
I believe those congresscritters are less in fear of the NSA spilling the beans on them than of something happening and their vote getting used against them then (even if there is no actual connection). “He has voted for/against…” is a lethal tool in the hand of rivals (especilally on one’s own side). As long as this works in primaries, expect supreme cowardice of incumbents.
As for the Pauls, please call me back when one of them runs for secretary of state or defense.
As for the Pauls, please call me back when one of them runs for secretary of state or defense.
As for the Pauls, please call me back when one of them runs for secretary of state or defense.
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
I’m fine with being indebted to anybody who gets up and fights for something right. No matter how wrong-headed they are on some other topics. In the case of the Patriot Act (non-)renewal, I think Pauk was right.
There are plenty of other ways for the NSA (or other government body) to wiretap anybody who they have a reasonable (even if only barely reasonable) suspicion is plotting, or funding) terrorist activities. There’s no need for the mass collection of data that NSA was doing.
To my mind, the arguments in favor of it are no different than the police arguing that they should be able to come through your house at any time, looking for evidence of criminal activity. Yes, it would allow them to find stuff that would help make cases against criminals. But it would still be wrong — and the vast majority of the population is clear on that. Which is why even those who are enthused about the Patriot Act haven’t gone that far. They only push the phone data collection because they thing they can manage to obscure what it is sufficiently to get away with it.
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
I’m fine with being indebted to anybody who gets up and fights for something right. No matter how wrong-headed they are on some other topics. In the case of the Patriot Act (non-)renewal, I think Pauk was right.
There are plenty of other ways for the NSA (or other government body) to wiretap anybody who they have a reasonable (even if only barely reasonable) suspicion is plotting, or funding) terrorist activities. There’s no need for the mass collection of data that NSA was doing.
To my mind, the arguments in favor of it are no different than the police arguing that they should be able to come through your house at any time, looking for evidence of criminal activity. Yes, it would allow them to find stuff that would help make cases against criminals. But it would still be wrong — and the vast majority of the population is clear on that. Which is why even those who are enthused about the Patriot Act haven’t gone that far. They only push the phone data collection because they thing they can manage to obscure what it is sufficiently to get away with it.
But, on another topic, how do you feel about being indebted to Rand Paul?
I’m fine with being indebted to anybody who gets up and fights for something right. No matter how wrong-headed they are on some other topics. In the case of the Patriot Act (non-)renewal, I think Pauk was right.
There are plenty of other ways for the NSA (or other government body) to wiretap anybody who they have a reasonable (even if only barely reasonable) suspicion is plotting, or funding) terrorist activities. There’s no need for the mass collection of data that NSA was doing.
To my mind, the arguments in favor of it are no different than the police arguing that they should be able to come through your house at any time, looking for evidence of criminal activity. Yes, it would allow them to find stuff that would help make cases against criminals. But it would still be wrong — and the vast majority of the population is clear on that. Which is why even those who are enthused about the Patriot Act haven’t gone that far. They only push the phone data collection because they thing they can manage to obscure what it is sufficiently to get away with it.