(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) A friend sent this to me; have to say, it makes the point well...
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5429/attachmentzx.jpg)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 02, 2013, 09:40:02 PM
(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) A friend sent this to me; have to say, it makes the point well...
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5429/attachmentzx.jpg)
Put the piece away Walter.
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 03, 2013, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 02, 2013, 09:40:02 PM
(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) A friend sent this to me; have to say, it makes the point well...
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5429/attachmentzx.jpg)
Put the piece away Walter.
Calmer than you are. ;D
I know this won't be popular here. But, I have to disagree. I get that knee-jerk legislation is a bad solution to this issue and I know that the people these asinine laws affect most are law-abiding people, but I still feel the right thing to do is the hard thing to do. More semi-automatic guns will never make for a safer world. We have created a hell of a mess in this country and maybe that's just the process of human society evolving. I know it's hard and scary to understand that bad shit just happens to people. Will my family be shot? I don't know. I hope not. But, I don't feel that a large capacity magazine and military style gun is the end-all solution. What is anyone's life worth? Is anyone's worth less than mine or my families? I just can't say. The Dao flows, and "bad" and "good" happen. Of course I will do what I can to protect myself and family the best I can, but stock piling military weapons in the name of "freedom" that anyone could steal and use such as the maniac in CT did is just not worth it to me. But, I certainly don't think I know what's best for you. I guess it boils down to that I think we need a collective change of heart instead of change of law. Yeah, I know. Sounds unlikely to me too. Keep'er easy, man.
I believe in the second amendment and also believe we have a big problem with guns that must be addressed.
And I believe the NRA (which I am a member of) is an impediment to progress rather than an aid. Effectively they block any, even the most common sense measures at not gun control but gun responsibility. The gun show loophole is an example. As a gun owner I believe there is absolutely no excuse for allowing that.
In my opinion it's time for gun advocates to step up to the plate and work for common sense solutions rather than drawing a line in the sand and standing shoulder to shoulder.
I don't get the second amendment thing.
The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia. Every random fella buying a gun to protect himself from other random fellas with guns doesn't seem like a well-regulated militia to me, that just seems like giving everyone guns and then saying "hey, don't take our guns away, because if you ignore the first half of that sentence in the amendment it sounds a bit like we're all supposed to be allowed guns."
Obviously I'm not a US citizen or an expert on US law so please feel free to tell me I'm wrong about my understanding of the meaning of that sentence. But from over here it looks like you guys have way too many guns per square foot, coupled with a medical profession that seems even happier than ours to prescribe mind-fucking drugs for any old reason... doesn't seem like a good combination to me.
Just my opinion, man.
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 03, 2013, 06:49:04 PM
I don't get the second amendment thing.
The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia. Every random fella buying a gun to protect himself from other random fellas with guns doesn't seem like a well-regulated militia to me, that just seems like giving everyone guns and then saying "hey, don't take our guns away, because if you ignore the first half of that sentence in the amendment it sounds a bit like we're all supposed to be allowed guns."
Obviously I'm not a US citizen or an expert on US law so please feel free to tell me I'm wrong about my understanding of the meaning of that sentence. But from over here it looks like you guys have way too many guns per square foot, coupled with a medical profession that seems even happier than ours to prescribe mind-fucking drugs for any old reason... doesn't seem like a good combination to me.
Just my opinion, man.
You're not noticing the commas; which means a new subject within a paragraph; as seen here...
The Second Amendment states THREE SEPARATE things that
"shall not be infringed" divided by commas.
(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) 1. "A well regulated militia" (it does not say a government regulated militia, just well regulated or organized one)
...this shall not be infringed.(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) 2. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Notice BOTH keep (own and have in possession) AND bare (carry)
...this shall not be infringed. (http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) 3. The above, 1 and 2,
shall not be infringed.And it goes on to say that BOTH are "
necessary to the security of a free state..." I.e., YOU MUST HAVE THEM or at least protect the people's right to organize one.
A well regulated militia
,COMMA being necessary to the security of a free state
,COMMA the right of the people to keep and bear arms
,COMMA shall not be infringed.
Whether we have a "A well regulated militia" or not, at any given time in history, we have the right to create them as the freedom to do so is mandated and protected in the Second Amendment.
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it won't ever be an issue unless a tyrannical government takes it away from the People." ~ Thomas Jefferson(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/second_amendment-300x272.jpg)
IMHO.
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 03, 2013, 06:49:04 PM
The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia.
The trick, then, is to understand
who, in these Untidy States, is a member of said militia. It is all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 years of age, and all veterans to age 65. This is according to the Militia Act of 1903. Prior to that, "the militia" was simply all able-bodied males.
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 03, 2013, 07:43:45 PM
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 03, 2013, 06:49:04 PM
The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia.
The trick, then, is to understand who, in these Untidy States, is a member of said militia. It is all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 years of age, and all veterans to age 65. This is according to the Militia Act of 1903. Prior to that, "the militia" was simply all able-bodied males.
Actually, the founding Fathers believed that any able bodied person (probably male) who could shoot (capable of baring arms) was by default a member of the American militia unless their loyalty laid elsewhere other than the United States. Hence; "minute men."
Well, see, again when you said "over here" it shows that the media all over wants to make it look like we're a bunch of chaotic gun-toting insane villains. Journalism has become a rat race of who will show the most sensational story of all. Instead of showing any true stories, such as when someone helps another or (heaven forbid) a gun is used in defense, the media anywhere will just say there X guns per American citizen. They'd rather show crazy or evil people doing horrible things rather than show feelgood stories or anything that doesn't agree with the "Americans are evil" stories. (Funny how the ones who say that are also the ones who want the USA to send aid to everyone around the world. :) )
This reminds me of a question posed to my class by my former high school history teacher when we were discussing the US Constitution. He asked that we go around the room and say how many guns were in our homes. The bulk of my class said 0, 1, or at most 2. There was a collective gasp when it was my turn and the answer was significantly larger than the rest of the class. In this particular class I was the only person that hunted on a regular basis, and so did my dad, mom, and brother. Since we hunted everything from squirrels to ducks to deer we each needed more than a single gun available to cover this. The class seemed even more surprised when the teacher, also an avid hunter, responded by saying "that sounds about right for a family of four hunters" and moved on.
Thanks to DB and those who expanded my understanding on the whole "militia" front - as I say, I'm not all that up on American politics.
So if the term militia is so loose as to include anybody with a dick between 17 and 45, plus vets, or indeed any able-bodied person... what about the "well-regulated" part? If the entire able-bodied population of your enormous country can be a militia, can it ever be well-regulated without further regulating who can join said militia?
Basically.. too many guns, man. Factoring in other social aspects, it's just a recipe for this kinda shit.
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 06, 2013, 03:15:35 PM
what about the "well-regulated" part? If the entire able-bodied population of your enormous country can be a militia, can it ever be well-regulated without further regulating who can join said militia?
Ain't nuthin' in this world gonna regulate your behavior quite so effectively as the knowledge that those whom you might wrong have the capacity to truly fuck your shit up.
By sticking it up your ass and pulling the trigger till it goes click? :)
Too many guns?
No..too many fucked-up people,too much media bias,making gun owners all sound like some wacky fringe group of fruitcakes!
Claim: "Expiration of the [federal 'assault weapon'] ban was a serious blow to public safety." To the contrary, since the ban expired, as the number of "assault weapons" that Americans own has risen by more than 2 million to an all-time high, the nation's total violent crime and murder rates have fallen to 37-year and 47-year lows, respectively.
"Who needs an 'assault weapon'"? Gun control supporters' favorite question is illegitimate. The burden of proof in a free society is not upon people who want to exercise rights, it's on people who want to restrict rights.
Interesting article I looked at-
Take it for what its worth..
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-security-preparing-for-massive-civil-war/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-security-preparing-for-massive-civil-war/)
Quote from: Stever on January 06, 2013, 05:48:47 PM
Too many guns?
No..too many fucked-up people,too much media bias,making gun owners all sound like some wacky fringe group of fruitcakes
Wouldn't reducing the numbers of guns be easier than reducing the numbers of fucked up people?
Obviously there's lots of people with guns who aren't going to go shoot innocent people. But even setting aside concerns over who else might find, steal, use your gun, doesn't restricting access to weapons still make sense?
I'd be interested to hear a pro-gun persons viewpoint on how to prevent the numbers of violent shootings such as the recent school violence and the batman incident... Is there a solution easier or more efficient than better gun control which the anti-gun people aren't thinking of?
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 10, 2013, 08:06:18 AM
Quote from: Stever on January 06, 2013, 05:48:47 PM
Too many guns?
No..too many fucked-up people,too much media bias,making gun owners all sound like some wacky fringe group of fruitcakes
Wouldn't reducing the numbers of guns be easier than reducing the numbers of fucked up people?
Maybe, if you want this...
(http://itistreason.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/gun-control-works2.jpg)
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 10, 2013, 08:06:18 AM
Quote from: Stever on January 06, 2013, 05:48:47 PM
Too many guns?
No..too many fucked-up people,too much media bias,making gun owners all sound like some wacky fringe group of fruitcakes
Wouldn't reducing the numbers of guns be easier than reducing the numbers of fucked up people?
Obviously there's lots of people with guns who aren't going to go shoot innocent people. But even setting aside concerns over who else might find, steal, use your gun, doesn't restricting access to weapons still make sense?
I'd be interested to hear a pro-gun persons viewpoint on how to prevent the numbers of violent shootings such as the recent school violence and the batman incident... Is there a solution easier or more efficient than better gun control which the anti-gun people aren't thinking of?
Yeah, it does. Seeing how difficult it would be to get a consensus definition of "fucked up people" and then the years it would take to put the processes in place to identify those people. But, I feel you're barking up the wrong tree around here man. It seems to me, the regular posters on this forum strongly believe in an idea of complete personal freedom to own whatever they want regardless of the potential danger to others. It's a case of American egoism and fear. People here are afraid. They would much rather shoot a person to death than let them steal their TV. Guns are a tool, but an instant, un-take-backable tool at that. They in themselves do not cause violence, obviously. Of course many here think we could better draw the line between low-capacity hunting weapons and weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing people, but groups like the NRA, who represent weapon manufacturers, won't allow it. They want it it all. Their idea of a utopia is one were everyone carries a gun, everywhere, at all times. (Just think of the sales!) Many people in the States just like guns and don't care about the potential for instant violence they represent, as much as their own idea of personal liberty. If it makes them personally "feel" safe, then they feel the cost of the dozens of daily shooting deaths that occur here are worth it. "Because it's me next." The NRA spends millions of dollars every year to undermine any study that has to do with gun violence. Their plan is simple. Keep the truth muddy. Instill fear in the populace. Advertise freedom with every tactical weapon. Profit. They won't just come out and say it like that. Oh no, they weave a tale of personal freedoms, history and whatnot. But they've figured it out, if you keep people fearing a violent past, they stop believing in a peaceful future. It boils down to fear, money and nothing more. Of course, this is just, like, my opinion man. Taker easy out there.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 10, 2013, 09:39:31 AM
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 10, 2013, 08:06:18 AM
Quote from: Stever on January 06, 2013, 05:48:47 PM
Too many guns?
No..too many fucked-up people,too much media bias,making gun owners all sound like some wacky fringe group of fruitcakes
Wouldn't reducing the numbers of guns be easier than reducing the numbers of fucked up people?
Obviously there's lots of people with guns who aren't going to go shoot innocent people. But even setting aside concerns over who else might find, steal, use your gun, doesn't restricting access to weapons still make sense?
I'd be interested to hear a pro-gun persons viewpoint on how to prevent the numbers of violent shootings such as the recent school violence and the batman incident... Is there a solution easier or more efficient than better gun control which the anti-gun people aren't thinking of?
It seems to me, the regular posters on this forum strongly believe in an idea of complete personal freedom to own whatever they want regardless of the potential danger to others.
I would have to disagree; I see a strong desire for personal responsibility and responsible freedom. I see no indication that anyone here, pro or con in the debate on gun ownership, is an irresponsible person. Gun ownership requires taking responsibility for such ownership, and I, as an example, promote safe and responsible ownership of arms. The vast majority of Americans have for over 230 years proven themselves extremely capable or owning arms and governing such arms in a proper manner.
Additionally, reducing an American to "It's a case of American egoism and fear" is a straw man and wholly without basis in fact or an understanding of the American tradition of the right to "keep and bare arms." I would also called it a more or less an insult to the average American with a natural passion for freedom. Do you really believe the founding Fathers of the United States acted in mere "egoism and fear?" I think not.
IMHO
Small Problem.
Fucked up person.
Big Problem
Fucked up person with a gun.
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 10, 2013, 10:14:08 AM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 10, 2013, 09:39:31 AM
Quote from: mrpaddy on January 10, 2013, 08:06:18 AM
Quote from: Stever on January 06, 2013, 05:48:47 PM
Too many guns?
No..too many fucked-up people,too much media bias,making gun owners all sound like some wacky fringe group of fruitcakes
Wouldn't reducing the numbers of guns be easier than reducing the numbers of fucked up people?
Obviously there's lots of people with guns who aren't going to go shoot innocent people. But even setting aside concerns over who else might find, steal, use your gun, doesn't restricting access to weapons still make sense?
I'd be interested to hear a pro-gun persons viewpoint on how to prevent the numbers of violent shootings such as the recent school violence and the batman incident... Is there a solution easier or more efficient than better gun control which the anti-gun people aren't thinking of?
It seems to me, the regular posters on this forum strongly believe in an idea of complete personal freedom to own whatever they want regardless of the potential danger to others.
I would have to disagree; I see a strong desire for personal responsibility and responsible freedom. I see no indication that anyone here, pro or con in the debate on gun ownership, is an irresponsible person. Gun ownership requires taking responsibility for such ownership, and I, as an example, promote safe and responsible ownership of arms. The vast majority of Americans have for over 230 years proven themselves extremely capable or owning arms and governing such arms in a proper manner.
Additionally, reducing an American to "It's a case of American egoism and fear" is a straw man and wholly without basis in fact or an understanding of the American tradition of the right to "keep and bare arms." I would also called it a more or less an insult to the average American with a natural passion for freedom. Do you really believe the founding Fathers of the United States acted in mere "egoism and fear?" I think not.
IMHO
Wrong dude. I did not reduce any American to a straw man. I gave the opinion that the
gun control issue here is based on the dire need of some people here to put their own perceived idea of personal liberty ahead of the general safety of others, no matter what the cost. It's always about the poor little me here. The whole civilized world laughs at us over this. I understand very well the history of this country. I just don't wish to repeat it. What people thought 240 some odd years is great for knowing where we've been, but of little to no use in dealing with our situation now. I think the founders dealt logically with the issues relevant within their time and then left the book open for new ideas for new times. Genius really. Do you think the founders may have worded the second amendment differently if at the time it was possible for one person to walk into a school and massacre 25 people in a few seconds with a gun? Me thinks probably. But whatever man, by our own natures we give each other our need to exist. Yin and Yang. I mean no insult. I think guns are cool as shit too and shooting is fun. But I would give it all up to prevent random killings, even if that means I myself leave myself open to be shot. Some things are bigger than me. Just giving my own opinion of the weather 'round here.
" I think guns are cool as shit too and shooting is fun. But I would give it all up to prevent random killings, even if that means I myself leave myself open to be shot."
I think guns are cool too,and I love shooting.
In a perfect world,there would be no random shootings.
Yes,that fuck-nose killed 26 people,with a rifle that had a 30 round mag,and the ME said they were all shot multiple times-just putting my 2 cents out there..the classroom was dark,shades drawn,kids huddled under desks,or what ever...he was one hell of a good shot,given that was the official story.
I have gone way off topic,and started to lose my train of thought here..
Would I give it all up to prevent random killings?
No.
Its still gonna happen,and would happen with more frequency,since those who are criminals will not give up their guns.
Criminals adore gun control-they embrace it,they look forward to it.
I wont leave myself open to be shot by some fucking nut,and I will do my best to protect myself,and my family.
If I was hanging out with Feinstein,..I would fucking step out of the way,duck,and cover..just sayin...
But,thats just like my opinion,man.
Man this gun control subject has really drawn a lot of enthusiasm.
Any chance we could move on to other subjects? The Forum is starting to look like a wing of the NRA.
Sorry,dude...its a "hot button" topic these days,everywhere!
I will move on to other forums I belong to to discuss this topic.
I did enjoy posting here-a refreshing change from the usual"fuck you" flame wars!
Anyway...heres a topic..Baby Ruth bars..they contain NO babies,nor do they contain any "Ruths"...discuss...
Quote from: forumdude on January 10, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
Man this gun control subject has really drawn a lot of enthusiasm.
Any chance we could move on to other subjects? The Forum is starting to look like a wing of the NRA.
Maybe we need a NDA..."National Dude Association." But you are correct; Sir, it seems to have played out it's time. 8)
Yeah,its played out..Im just gonna say fuck it,and move on.
Keep on abiding,and take care,dudes!
Far out. I'll smoke to that!
Revoke my "dudeship"-I enjoyed my time here,is what im saying.
Im a Walter.
Quote from: Stever on January 11, 2013, 12:10:26 AM
Revoke my "dudeship"-I enjoyed my time here,is what im saying.
Im a Walter.
We all have to deal with our inner Walter.
Quote from: Stever on January 11, 2013, 12:10:26 AM
Revoke my "dudeship"-I enjoyed my time here,is what im saying.
Im a Walter.
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 11, 2013, 12:05:02 AM
Far out. I'll smoke to that!
Far out, man! Burn one.
Far fucking out!
Burn one for me,while you sit on your asses and do nothing.
Quote from: Stever on January 11, 2013, 02:35:18 AM
Far fucking out!
Burn one for me,while you sit on your asses and do nothing.
I still jerk off manually, that should count for something. 8)
Quote from: forumdude on January 10, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
Man this gun control subject has really drawn a lot of enthusiasm.
Any chance we could move on to other subjects? The Forum is starting to look like a wing of the NRA.
Fucking A!
Quote from: banjodude on January 11, 2013, 07:26:46 AM
Quote from: forumdude on January 10, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
Man this gun control subject has really drawn a lot of enthusiasm.
Any chance we could move on to other subjects? The Forum is starting to look like a wing of the NRA.
Fucking A!
I think you'll notice a lot of us haven't been saying a lot recently because (though we understand and admire your passion) it doesn't mean anything to those of us outside the USA.
Personally I'm more worried that the police here in London started carrying guns around the time of the Olympics, and don't seem to have put them away yet.
Quote from: meekon5 on January 11, 2013, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: banjodude on January 11, 2013, 07:26:46 AM
Quote from: forumdude on January 10, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
Man this gun control subject has really drawn a lot of enthusiasm.
Any chance we could move on to other subjects? The Forum is starting to look like a wing of the NRA.
Fucking A!
I think you'll notice a lot of us haven't been saying a lot recently because (though we understand and admire your passion) it doesn't mean anything to those of us outside the USA.
Personally I'm more worried that the police here in London started carrying guns around the time of the Olympics, and don't seem to have put them away yet.
Actually that is an important point.
Even police in UK don't carry guns.
Make of that what you will in terms of the current debate.
Quote from: meekon5 on January 11, 2013, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: banjodude on January 11, 2013, 07:26:46 AM
Quote from: forumdude on January 10, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
Man this gun control subject has really drawn a lot of enthusiasm.
Any chance we could move on to other subjects? The Forum is starting to look like a wing of the NRA.
Fucking A!
I think you'll notice a lot of us haven't been saying a lot recently because (though we understand and admire your passion) it doesn't mean anything to those of us outside the USA.
Personally I'm more worried that the police here in London started carrying guns around the time of the Olympics, and don't seem to have put them away yet.
They are for intimidating us, not the Arabs. The Genie is out of the bottle.
Quote from: Stever on January 11, 2013, 02:35:18 AM
Burn one for me,while you sit on your asses and do nothing.
On that note, a little mood music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQldSi-heE).
In the United States there is no democracy. You have no rights. All you have are privileges subject to the caprice of those in power. The only difference between the Constitution and the bible is that the gods created by the Constitution are real, and they are the plutocrats the Constitution was designed to protect. Just like the mythical gods, you can pray to the living gods all you want and with the same outcome. None of them give a fuck about you. It will not bother them to kill you if you are foolish enough to stand between them and something they want. They do it all the time.
I hold no sway over those gods, man. They don't give a fuck about me, either. I've met the motherfuckers, broke bread with them, drank their liquor and had lengthy conversations with them. They do not give a fuck about us. They do not seek a "new world order" because the current order suits them just fine.
They own it. They do whatever they want with complete impunity. They don't care about your votes or your letters or your protests in the streets or your congregations inside the free speech zones. They look on with mild amusement, wondering what you hope to accomplish by the impotent act of voicing your worthless opinions.
But if you want to blame my lack of faith in the mythology you cherish for your own failure to maintain unquestioning belief in it, by all means carry on. I don't mind at all.
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 11, 2013, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: Stever on January 11, 2013, 02:35:18 AM
Burn one for me,while you sit on your asses and do nothing.
On that note, a little mood music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQldSi-heE).
In the United States there is no democracy. You have no rights. All you have are privileges subject to the caprice of those in power. The only difference between the Constitution and the bible is that the gods created by the Constitution are real, and they are the plutocrats the Constitution was designed to protect. Just like the mythical gods, you can pray to the living gods all you want and with the same outcome. None of them give a fuck about you. It will not bother them to kill you if you are foolish enough to stand between them and something they want. They do it all the time.
I hold no sway over those gods, man. They don't give a fuck about me, either. I've met the motherfuckers, broke bread with them, drank their liquor and had lengthy conversations with them. They do not give a fuck about us. They do not seek a "new world order" because the current order suits them just fine. They own it. They do whatever they want with complete impunity. They don't care about your votes or your letters or your protests in the streets or your congregations inside the free speech zones. They look on with mild amusement, wondering what you hope to accomplish by the impotent act of voicing your worthless opinions.
But if you want to blame my lack of faith in the mythology you cherish for your own failure to maintain unquestioning belief in it, by all means carry on. I don't mind at all.
Fucking-A right man! It's like Lenin said man, follow the fucking money. Fat stacks of cash (which today equal power) is the only thing that gives the real over-achievers out there a hard on man. Fuck you. Fuck me. Fuck everyone else. Ah, fuck it all anyway. I'm just wanna get high until I die. If they let me have that much I'll die happy.
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 11, 2013, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: Stever on January 11, 2013, 02:35:18 AM
Burn one for me,while you sit on your asses and do nothing.
On that note, a little mood music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQldSi-heE).
In the United States there is no democracy. You have no rights. All you have are privileges subject to the caprice of those in power. The only difference between the Constitution and the bible is that the gods created by the Constitution are real, and they are the plutocrats the Constitution was designed to protect. Just like the mythical gods, you can pray to the living gods all you want and with the same outcome. None of them give a fuck about you. It will not bother them to kill you if you are foolish enough to stand between them and something they want. They do it all the time.
I hold no sway over those gods, man. They don't give a fuck about me, either. I've met the motherfuckers, broke bread with them, drank their liquor and had lengthy conversations with them. They do not give a fuck about us. They do not seek a "new world order" because the current order suits them just fine. They own it. They do whatever they want with complete impunity. They don't care about your votes or your letters or your protests in the streets or your congregations inside the free speech zones. They look on with mild amusement, wondering what you hope to accomplish by the impotent act of voicing your worthless opinions.
But if you want to blame my lack of faith in the mythology you cherish for your own failure to maintain unquestioning belief in it, by all means carry on. I don't mind at all.
Well it's not a line item veto power for the people but one thing I see pretty clearly is that when push comes to shove if they feel like their job is on the line they don't take a stand against public sentiments.
If the numbers are against gun legislation in their district then they will be also. And visa versa.
The real problem is the way the debate is controlled.
The reality is that most people are fairly close to the center on most things but the debate is between 2 extremes on pretty much all issues.
It's no accident. It motivates people by fear.
How do you get people to vote for something that does not benefit them?
Convince them that the only alternative is worse.
It keeps people in line.
Most people out there live in constant fear of fictional demons that are constructed by extreme lunatics spewing lies and idiocy. And it just gets worse and worse.
The 2 sides (as in parties) are just pro wrestling and watching it all play out is like watching some rube on the street being fleeced at 3 card Monty.
I appreciate what the Dudley lama has noted but I would like to get one more question answered.
For the point of owning a gun for personal safety, how do you keep it handy for emergencies? In the uk before they changed the rules on handgun ownership, you were required to keep your gun locked up and the bullets locked in a separate location. So if you did find intruders in your house, it is unlikely you could arm yourself without meeting them first. I take it things are less stringent in th USA?
Quote from: milnie on January 11, 2013, 03:33:33 PM
I appreciate what the Dudley lama has noted but I would like to get one more question answered.
For the point of owning a gun for personal safety, how do you keep it handy for emergencies? In the uk before they changed the rules on handgun ownership, you were required to keep your gun locked up and the bullets locked in a separate location. So if you did find intruders in your house, it is unlikely you could arm yourself without meeting them first. I take it things are less stringent in th USA?
Personally I keep mine locked up in a gun safe.
There are lots of opinions on this. If I felt strongly about the need to have quick access I'd agree with the following.
Check this article Item # 6.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence)
A lot of gun owners that I know insist on keeping loaded guns handy and readily available. Even though they have kids in the house. Personally I think they are being idiots.
I even know someone who sleeps with a loaded .44 mag.
He is an idiot irregardless of the gun.
I believe in the right to bear arms but I personally know a handful of people that I wish didn't.
And as expected they are the strongest defenders of "gun rights" that I know.
Quote from: milnie on January 11, 2013, 03:33:33 PM
For the point of owning a gun for personal safety, how do you keep it handy for emergencies?
Speaking for myself, if I needed a firearm right this instant I'd just pick up the one that's sitting about three inches beyond my keyboard. :D And if I needed one in the middle of the night I'd grab the one that's on the headboard of the bed. I've used firearms for self defense twice, both times at an instant's notice with no reason to anticipate the trouble that came my way, and both times without even showing the muzzle to the aggressor. In my view a home defense gun is like an automobile seat belt or a motorcycle helmet: If it's not in place before you need it, it's worthless.
It should be noted that there are no children in our home, and the guns are secured when the grandkids or any other children come to visit. They're secured when any adult we don't trust with our lives comes to visit -- especially when it's my stepson who is a hot-headed asshole. But at all other times, all of the firearms in our home are loaded. We're in town but on the edge of it, and we sometimes get bears or mountain lions wandering past and almost always have deer (their prey) in our yard.