It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => 2nd Amendment/Firearms => Topic started by: 21stCenturyThinker on December 02, 2012, 10:40:41 PM
-
In the middle of my Sunday Night Football game, Bob Costas felt it was important to convince the viewing public to deprive me of my right to own a handgun. He stated (granted he claimed to be quoting a KC newspaper columnist) that handguns do not make America safer and that "had he not owned a handgun, Jevan Belcher would be alive today". He also mentioned that situations like the shooting in Miami would not have escalated if only there were laws making handguns illegal.
I know I'm preaching to the choir on this forum, but I still think it's important to remind ourselves about the absolute falseness of these lies.
First of all, do we need to prove again that the states with the largest percentage of gun owners are the safest in the nation? And the states with the most onerous gun laws are the most violent and dangerous? Of course not. Everyone knows that guns in the hands of responsible citizens are used properly for self defense and are extremely effective deterrents. We also know that the truth has absolutely no bearing on the liberal propaganda machine. Which is why we must continue speaking the truth; if for no other reason than to make it harder to cover up.
Secondly, would Jevan Belcher really be alive today? Perhaps in the same way that OJ Simpson is alive today? Did the gun really empower the linebacker for the KC Chiefs to kill his girlfriend? Is the argument truly that he was angry enough to shoot her but not angry enough to punch her? One punch would have done the job. And then Jevan Belcher could have sat in jail for the rest of his life. Is that a happier ending to the story? The gun is only the issue in this story because of its propaganda value.
Propaganda? How about this: the national papers were swimming with the story of the black teenager who was shot in the convenience store parking lot. Ostensibly because his music was too loud. Although, being in the back seat, I suspect the boy who was shot had nothing to do with the volume of the music. I suspect he escalated the situation with his mouth and then was terribly surprised when he got shot. But that's not my point and I'm certainly not defending the actions of the man who did the shooting. I hope we hear the whole story someday.
No, here's my point: I live 2000 miles from Miami and yet I know about this shooting. People in my state are going to be influenced to take away my gun rights because of the national coverage of the story. The story seeks to prove that all gun owners are maniacs waiting for a chance to kill. But I know another story that none of you have ever heard. When I was stationed in Hawaii, one of my soldiers was beaten into a brain dead coma in the parking lot of a convenience store by four men while his wife and infant son sat in the car and dialed 911. They never caught the four guys and the story didn't even make the local paper. Very bad for tourism. Hawaii has very strict gun laws. I never think of that incident without thinking that any armed person could have saved his life. With any caliber. The four Hawaiian men simply thought the soldier had cut them off on the freeway. Going by the wife's testimony. It would have been easy to dissuade them.
I heard Jevan Belcher's murder-suicide described on the football pregame show as a "horrific tragedy". But it's not. Nazi concentration camps are a horrific tragedy. The slaughter of innocent millions in Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Iraq; those are horrific tragedies. Jevan Belcher was just a poor mixed up athlete who suddenly couldn't cope with life. It happens every day in a thousand different ways in a thousand different places. What worries me is that the liberals think they are responsible for preventing bad things from happening. They will try to legislate all of us until tragedy, heartbreak and maybe unhappiness and disappointment are gone from the world.
It reminds me of the old Army joke: the beatings will continue until morale improves.
My message to the liberals: stop thinking you're God. You cannot be responsible for every sparrow that falls. And it's insulting and irritating to the rest of us when you try.
-
I heard costas,,,,,,,,and I turned the channel. Can't get away from the left.....but I can turn them off.
-
My message to the liberals: stop thinking you're God. You cannot be responsible for every sparrow that falls. And it's insulting and irritating to the rest of us when you try.
Bush is responsible for every sparrow that falls. And Cheney loaded the handgun and gave it to Belcher.
-
It's probably a good thing the game last night was between two losing teams, outside of Philly and Texas the rest of the country largely did as I did and paid it no attention.
But I had not heard Costas make an completely moronic statement like that before, if there isn't an instance of brain trauma to account for it then it appears this fool had a momentary lapse of honesty and people got a glimpse of the real moonbat leftist lurking inside.
Good posting 21CT. Perhaps if we beat Costas enough his attitude will change? Nah, doubtful.
Mr. Costas, meet Mr. Foot.
::asskicking::
-
"Nothing Costas says in this clip is new or even terribly interesting — Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher used a gun to kill his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins and himself, so no one should own guns — but the context of his anti-Second Amendment rant was incredibly bizarre, and not just because it came in the middle of a halftime show with “God Bless America” playing in the background: (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/03/video-bob-costas-on-gun-control-in-the-middle-of-an-nfl-game/)
Bob Costas on Gun Control following Jovan Belcher tragedy Sunday Night Half-Time Show Tribute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOi7If0zW9s#ws)
Why bizarre? Well, if you watched NBC’s Football Night in America last night, you’d already know that the broadcast team could barely even mention the fact that Belcher committed murder.
Before and during the game, they used phrases like “lost her life in this tragedy” to describe what happened to his victim and other non-judgmental phrases. Into that context comes Costas to blame … the gun. It was surreal, an experience only interrupted in the post-game show when Rodney Harrison appeared to get a little angry and remind everyone that Belcher killed someone else besides himself. And while I didn’t watch the earlier games during the day, NBC’s crew was not really an exception in how they approached the Belcher murder-suicide story.
From the comments:
"On the same day, A member of the Cleveland Browns grounds crew killed himself at their practice facility. He hung himself in a utility shed. Why did he not call for the banning of rope?? If someone wants to kill others or themselves, there are plenty of ways to do it that do not involve firearms and it happens everyday."
Attention Bob Costas: Molon Labe.
-
The other thing that has sparked up again as a result of this story is the debate over lawful people being allowed to have weapons in their vehicles where they park to go to work, most places have those retarded "come on in criminals, we ban law-abiding people from carry guns here" signs, so naturally they want to deny us the right to keep them in our cars too.
Pisses me off! I've had it with these gun-grabbing Nazi bastards!
-
You guys talking about Bob Corksuker?
-
If you are like me you were raised around guns - and responsible gun stewardship. My dad spent some time as a DI and was absolutely no nonsense when it came to firearms training. We were taught an appreciation for, and a respect of guns.
With that orientation it came as somewhat of a surprise to me to see the casual disregard that some have with guns. Yes, you can kill yourself with a hammer, but it is a thousand times easier to do it with a gun (or a chopsaw for that matter). It is a tool but a tool that commands attention and common sense.
Years ago I was camping with a group of friends - some close, some casual. We were having a great and relaxing time drinking, fishing, drinking, playing musical instruments, drinking... On the 2nd night one guy who I did not know got his back up about something or another. He wasn't closely associated to anyone that I knew of, and I suspect that he was feeling vulnerable. So he decided to send a message to the group of his virility and general awesomeness by yarding out a handgun and waving it around. Ignoring the advice to put it away and settle down, he got increasingly belligerent.
So five or six of us pulled out own weapons - which came as a huge surprise to this guy - and disarmed him. We hog-tied him in the back of his pickup and drive him down to the ranger station, leaving him in the parking lot. The next day we got a visit from the rangers who had gotten an earful from pancho villa after he sobered up a bit, and wanted to know what was up. We surrendered his gun to the rangers and explained how he had threatened the group and wasn't a very nice camp-buddy. They laughed and warned the guy to leave and not come back.
Some people are azzholes. You can usually tell them from a mile off and avoid them. Some times you must confront them. This guy would have been a jerk whether he had had a gun, a tank, or just his big mouth. I don't know this Belcher guy but I would bet that, if one were to have paid attention, they would have seen the tells.
My heart goes out to the baby girl orphaned by all of this, and to the families that are now struggling to come to grips with their loss.
bob corksoaker can kiss my ass.
-
Agree 100% 'Soup! I was taught the same way, was even allowed to keep the family .22 in my locker at school (with prior notice to the school) as our classroom part of firearm training was in the school cafeteria! Cannot imagine such a thing today and it is little wonder people fail to use guns responsibly. Combine that with the intentional stripping of boys of anything masculine and you get the Columbine assholes!
I hope the little girl is raised by good people.
-
As I looked around last night and this morning, it appears that everyone assumes Costas just gets a little ninety minute segment during Sunday Night Football halftime to say whatever he likes. I dont believe it for a second. He quoted and paraphrased a circle around Whitlocks comment about football related brain trauma. Why? Because the NFL would not have agreed to THAT. I am quite certain that the NFL ok'd or even directed his statement as a diversion from another round of controversy over head injury in the NFL. And its working.
-
Yeppers.
Not being particularly sports-minded and (again) not a boob-toob watcher I don't think I could guess at the average demographic of the typical viewer but would guess that there are a bunch who are also gun owners - owners who similar to what I've seen so far aren't infatuated by costas's remarks. I anticipate blowback from this and if the NFL is thinking that this was an opportune diversion they will find it not the case.
-
Today, it was mentioned that Costas' remarks were racist in as much he said that negros are too stupid to possess firearms.
Tags:
Writer defends tattoo criticism of QB Kaepernick (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7277.msg84541.html#msg84541)
UK: Social workers remove foster kids because couple is conservative (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7240.msg84096.html#msg84096)
Mr. Earl (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7251.0.html)
-
Today, it was mentioned that Costas' remarks were racist in as much he said that negros are too stupid to possess firearms.
Tags:
Writer defends tattoo criticism of QB Kaepernick (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7277.msg84541.html#msg84541)
UK: Social workers remove foster kids because couple is conservative (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7240.msg84096.html#msg84096)
Mr. Earl (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7251.0.html)
I always knew he was a racist. ::facepalm::
-
H/T: SDA
You want to take that from me. You want me to be unable to defend myself. You want to leave me vulnerable to those out there who look at a five foot tall fat girl and think “victim”. You want me to be unable to protect myself when there is no one else around to do so. You want to make me dependent on others to provide for my basic safety and security.
Let us not beat around the bush, you want to sacrifice my life on the altar of your political beliefs. How dare you? Honestly, who do the two of you think you are to demand that my blood be shed so that you may preen about what wonderful people you are? Why, precisely, are you removing the responsibility for Kasandra Perkins’ murder from Jovan Belcher and placing it on an inanimate object? That is what you are doing, after all. Your position is that absent the gun, Jovan Belcher would not have murdered Kasandra Perkins. What utter rot. It’s not as if, to pick something at random, he could have picked up a knife and slit her throat so violently that she was nearly decapitated. Oh no, that would never ever happen. By focusing on the gun, you are choosing to make Jovan Belcher a mere bystander to his own actions. That is horrific. Jovan Belcher murdered Kasandra Perkins. He chose to pull that trigger. He chose to take her life. How dare you attempt to absolve him in even the slightest manner for that crime. He killed her. Not a gun. He did it. No one else.
I will not let you two demand that my blood be shed so that you can sit there and declaim your supposed superior morality to the world. No. You would rather I be dead. That is the logical conclusion of your positions. I will not die for you. No other woman should either.
Full letter:
http://doubleplusundead.com/2012/12/03/an-open-letter-to-bob-costas-and-jason-whitlock/ (http://doubleplusundead.com/2012/12/03/an-open-letter-to-bob-costas-and-jason-whitlock/)
-
H/T: SDA
You want to take that from me. You want me to be unable to defend myself. You want to leave me vulnerable to those out there who look at a five foot tall fat girl and think “victim”. You want me to be unable to protect myself when there is no one else around to do so. You want to make me dependent on others to provide for my basic safety and security.
Let us not beat around the bush, you want to sacrifice my life on the altar of your political beliefs. How dare you? Honestly, who do the two of you think you are to demand that my blood be shed so that you may preen about what wonderful people you are? Why, precisely, are you removing the responsibility for Kasandra Perkins’ murder from Jovan Belcher and placing it on an inanimate object? That is what you are doing, after all. Your position is that absent the gun, Jovan Belcher would not have murdered Kasandra Perkins. What utter rot. It’s not as if, to pick something at random, he could have picked up a knife and slit her throat so violently that she was nearly decapitated. Oh no, that would never ever happen. By focusing on the gun, you are choosing to make Jovan Belcher a mere bystander to his own actions. That is horrific. Jovan Belcher murdered Kasandra Perkins. He chose to pull that trigger. He chose to take her life. How dare you attempt to absolve him in even the slightest manner for that crime. He killed her. Not a gun. He did it. No one else.
I will not let you two demand that my blood be shed so that you can sit there and declaim your supposed superior morality to the world. No. You would rather I be dead. That is the logical conclusion of your positions. I will not die for you. No other woman should either.
Full letter:
http://doubleplusundead.com/2012/12/03/an-open-letter-to-bob-costas-and-jason-whitlock/ (http://doubleplusundead.com/2012/12/03/an-open-letter-to-bob-costas-and-jason-whitlock/)
As usual, the comments are priceless......Silly me. People don't kill people, guns kill people. I bet that firearm, or better yet, that evil bullet had a mind of its own. He would have never killed the girl if that blamed bullet didn't go off.
-
Typical liberal bullsplatter! Make the perp a victim, use the victim as a pawn in their insane agenda, blame guns for violence in society and blaming contact sports for turning otherwise passive individuals into homicidal maniacs. And anybody who objects to your BS is a gun crazed backwoods inbred racist. So sick of this crap!
-
CNN's Piers Morgan, in the wake of the thug* Jovan Belcher's murder/suicide, joined the 'let's ban guns' parade on Twitter and was met with an epic smackdown. So epic, in fact, it actually shut the @sshole up (he ran away) while the conversation continued without him.
http://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/275709039235694592 (http://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/275709039235694592)
(http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/piersmorgan_twitterpwn.jpg)
* 5 minute radio interview with the father of a then 12-year-old son who was bullied by Jovan when they lived on Long Island. They eventually had to move to get away from the thug as he always acted all innocent when authority wqas around, a true sociopath.
http://www.schnittshow.com/player/?mid=22679872 (http://www.schnittshow.com/player/?mid=22679872)
-
Piers should go back to where he was hatched, what a waste of DNA... ::mooning:: ::asskicking::
When are we going to combine waste disposal efforts and load all our worst trash on rockets and launch them into the sun? Ever?! ::outrage::
-
Good smackdown, @caroljsroth!
::cool::
-
Good smackdown, @caroljsroth!
::cool::
Indeed! "right next to the word "muskets"".
-
Piers morgan wouldn't recognize a fact if someone were to beat him to death with one (now that's in interesting idea).
-
Here's another shythead, and yes of course, this ass is from Chicago...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/espn-personality-gives-bob-costas-a-standing-and-loud-ovation-for-his-stance-on-gun-control/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/espn-personality-gives-bob-costas-a-standing-and-loud-ovation-for-his-stance-on-gun-control/)
::vafancoul::
-
Ahhhh ::outrage:: I am so sick and tired of these fools.
It was the gas that killed all the Jews in WWII it had nothing to do with the nazis, right bob costas or it was the knife that killed Nicole not OJ?
I know I am preaching to the choir but trying to argue with these people leaves one messed up in the head............
When I want to watch football I do not want to hear an arrogant schmuck lecture me on liberal thought and ideology. I just want to watch a game and take my mind off all the worlds problems for a couple hours and enjoy a sport I like very much.
As Mark Walters says from Armed American Radio: Remember to carry on, Carry often and Carry everywhere........
-
They're everywhere, Magnum, and have infiltrated everything. It's no wonder we have so many socialist-leaning young people; it permeates the very air they breathe like fish who don't know "water" or that it's wet.
-
They're everywhere, Magnum, and have infiltrated everything. It's no wonder we have so many socialist-leaning young people; it permeates the very air they breathe like fish who don't know "water" or that it's wet.
Hi Pandora,
You are so right the heads of the young people are so full of @*%# that it is going to take a valiant effort by us to help them to change. I am trying. I got a youngster at work to realize obama may not be the messiah they once thought............
-
Leftists are the dictionary definition of totalitarians. It's not enough that they hold a certain world view. It's not enough that they be free to espouse and proselytize that world view. It's only enough when that world view arcs over every aspect of existence, and there are no competing world views. You must accept and espouse their world view too, and if you don't then you are a problem. Their methods of solving "problems" depend on how much power they have. But it always and without exception gravitates toward physical elimination of the "problem".
We haven't seen anything yet. There is a reason they so conspicuously invade what are supposedly apolitical and leisurely pursuits. It's because they will not permit any sort of escape from their demand for conformity. Therein lies one of the great ironies. All the liberals who pride themselves on their flamboyant and deliberately unusual style when it comes to dress or music fail to recognize that they've been tossed this bone of a superficial non-conformity in exchange for the meaningful version of it: non-conformity of thought.
-
Good on you Magnum. The more these idiots show themselves the more opportunity we will have to help others see the distinction we know clearly.
-
Leftists are the dictionary definition of totalitarians. It's not enough that they hold a certain world view. It's not enough that they be free to espouse and proselytize that world view. It's only enough when that world view arcs over every aspect of existence, and there are no competing world views. You must accept and espouse their world view too, and if you don't then you are a problem. Their methods of solving "problems" depend on how much power they have. But it always and without exception gravitates toward physical elimination of the "problem".
We haven't seen anything yet. There is a reason they so conspicuously invade what are supposedly apolitical and leisurely pursuits. It's because they will not permit any sort of escape from their demand for conformity. Therein lies one of the great ironies. All the liberals who pride themselves on their flamboyant and deliberately unusual style when it comes to dress or music fail to recognize that they've been tossed this bone of a superficial non-conformity in exchange for the meaningful version of it: non-conformity of thought.
I keep coming back to that conformity angle too G, it is something I ridiculed left-leaning friends about three decades ago! They think because they are products of non-conformist hippie parents that their ideology is still non-conformist, when everything about them is conformist! There is nothing more conformist, more lazy. more gutless than being a leftist! Try to prove it to them and their puny barely functioning brains will shut down to where they are left with no other recourse but hurling personal insults at you and running away. They then meet up with others of their pack and enjoy talking about how messed up you are as a pathetic means of forgetting how truly conformist, lazy and gutless they truly are. They are incapable of winning an intellectually honest debate on ideology because they cannot risk having their religiously guarded precepts challenged. They are utterly useless, but they are in ascendance now and hold more power than people of this ilk should ever be allowed to have. So yes, we haven't seen anything yet. We are already in a de facto police state, our rights are being trampled on a daily basis, we are being conditioned to accept more tyranny for our own good and there is no organized force challenging the continued rush toward ever more centralized government. It will get worse, I doubt people in great numbers will wake up in time...certainly not in time to prevent BITS. Yeah, this never ends well.
-
Who do these sports journalists (the dumbest species of animal on the planet you know) want to control? Black males?
-
Who do these sports journalists (the dumbest species of animal on the planet you know) want to control? Black males?
Sounds like chains.
Hmm, is that racist?
::)
-
A comment on the 'net:
Costas is wrong.
When my guns talk to me it isn't kill, kill, kill. Usually they are bitching I don't take them out enough. Or why are you looking at pictures of that cheap Glock tramp?
LOL!
-
A comment on the 'net:
Costas is wrong.
When my guns talk to me it isn't kill, kill, kill. Usually they are bitching I don't take them out enough. Or why are you looking at pictures of that cheap Glock tramp?
LOL!
"I love it when you touch me there" ;)
-
Continuing your theme, Soup.
A song from Team America: World Police, Only a Woman (Is Allowed To Touch Me There).
Team America - Only A Woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ5mcU-wwYo#ws)
The songs in the movie are hysterical, my favorite being the one mocking Michael Bay, Pearl Harbor Sucked:
I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that’s an awful lot girl
And now, now you’ve gone away
And all I’m trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you
I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He’s way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that sh*tty movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you
Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you
This song always cracks me up. I'm sure Parker and Stone are always invited to Bay's parties. LOL!
-
A comment on the 'net:
Costas is wrong.
When my guns talk to me it isn't kill, kill, kill. Usually they are bitching I don't take them out enough. Or why are you looking at pictures of that cheap Glock tramp?
LOL!
"I love it when you touch me there" ;)
"You never take me anywhere! When's the last time you tripped my trigger?!"
;D
-
Hmmm. That's not what I hear from my M1; it complains it's too cold outside. (Not really; it works fine in the cold. I'm the one that doesn't like functioning in the chill.)
-
Heh.
Somebody needs a hug!
::grouphug::
-
Ouch...... ::clapping::
-
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4295/poohh.jpg)
-
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4295/poohh.jpg)
Okay, it IS very late at night...even wee hours of the morning....but that did make me laugh out loud.
-
Heh!
Did ya see Boob doubled down on his anti-gun rant? Yes, he made it worse. I would link but l am on my phone.
-
Just saw an interview of Bob Costas by Bill O'Reilly in which Costas was trying to soften his MNF statements and assure us he isn't "trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment". Good old O'Reilly. Quickly blew Costas off his prepared position and got him (Costas) to expose himself yet again. And it always comes down to the same few points:
1. Costas proposes that when there are lots of guns out there, far more bad things happen than good things. Far more do harm with their guns than those who protect themselves with guns. Possibly this seems true to Costas since I suspect that he doesn't know a lot of real people. If you get all your news and world views from the NBC conglomerate then it makes sense your world view will be skewed. Only BAD news about guns makes the news. If there are a thousand instances per day when a gun prevented a felony they will be ignored while a single instance of a misused gun will make the national news.
2. He believes, and Bill O'Reilly didn't think it was a bad idea, that training should be required for the possession of a firearm. It sounds very reasonable at first. A local company provides training in urban warfare tactics and self defense with a handgun. It's lots of fun. I love the training and the feeling of preparedness it provides. My problem is with the word REQUIRED. That's what Costas really wants and where I suspect O'Reilly would balk. Because as soon as you set up that requirement, you give control of the 2nd Amendment to the person administering the test. "Oops, you only scored a 98%; no gun for you". Try to imagine the hue and cry if training was required in order to vote. Wouldn't it change the political process in an amazing way if people had to pass a basic test before voting?
3. Costas and his ilk ALWAYS want to exaggerate the misuse of guns. When talking about the shooting at the Batman movie, Costas actually at one point mentioned "a bazooka". He also said the murderer had a military weapon the "fires hundreds of rounds". In other words, we armed civilians are just stupid because we obviously cannot compete with the sophisticated weaponry out there and shouldn't even try. Possibly he doesn't see the irony in his argument: the world is more dangerous, therefore we shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves. When does that start to make sense? But it's a very old debate tactic; you stretch a point to ridiculous limits and then argue that if it's not true for the "worst case scenario" then it's not true at all. In other words if I can't stop a tank (or a "bazooka") with my 9mm then there's no point in carrying a gun.
4. "In a movie theater full of armed civilians, it is much more likely that someone will get shot because someones toes got stepped on in the popcorn line" (paraphrased). This argument always pisses me off. I remember it also being used in an old Dirty Harry movie: "if everyone has guns then pretty soon people are shooting each other for jaywalking or because their dog crapped on their neighbor's lawn". In other words we, the people, are not sophisticated or intelligent enough to handle the responsibility of firearms. The gun makes us stupid and psychotic. Now, I'm not stupid or naive. I know that there are some immature and unbalanced people out there. But gun laws don't prevent them from having guns. And forcing me to be their victim isn't the solution.
What Costas and most liberals want, I suspect, is to UN-INVENT guns. Magically make them disappear from the earth. Then we'll all join hands and love one another. But it just can't happen. As we all know, violence is a symptom of something much deeper- the guns didn't create the violence.
We don't live in a "gun culture". We live in a "violence culture". Every popular American movie has dozens, if not hundreds of killings in it. Even our fairy tales like Star Wars. And video games? The whole Zombie Apocalypse was created just so we could get kids to stop killing humans in video games. Nazis are too old fashioned. I'm not qualified to say if all this "cause" or "effect". But I am certain when I say the world is becoming a more violent place. I see every day that kids care less and less about authority, respect and tradition. And these kids will grow up with this same lack of values and respect for law.
In the eyes of the lefties, the solution to the violence is not conformity, harmony and positive role models. Their solution is fewer rights and more government regulation. I don't know if the novel 1984 is required reading in school any more. Probably not. But we are so close to living in that book's dystopia that we should be calling Obama "Big Brother". Might be time to pull it out and dust it off a little.
Here's a quote you can take to the bank: Government oppression leads to more violence, not less. I promise I know what I'm talking about.
-
As for the training requirement, besides the criteria for "permission" being subjective, there's always the question of availability. No local business offering training courses or facilities? Too bad, so sad, no gun for you.
A short while ago, after DC v Heller, a woman reporter out of DC did a series of pieces on her quest to legally acquire a gun permit and a weapon. The process was overly lengthy and complicated by the lack of training facilities, gun shops and FFL dealers.
If "they" can't legally prohibit people from owning, "they" can and will simply attach requirements and conditions that "they" know either can't be met or are onerous to do so.
-
See, Bob, the British had their Brown Bess muskets, and so did some of our lads. They came from the same heritage or stock, with the same goods as a common denominator. But we were also hunters over here, Bob. We needed to take out game at a long rang or we'd starve. So we also had rifles, you know, with rifling on the inside of the barrel, and where the name comes from, Bob. Now these were expensive, and not everybody could afford one. But Bob, they existed -- and we didn't starve to death. Now Bob, after The Shot Heard 'Round The World, we were fighting a war of secession or a war of rebellion, depending on your point of view. So anyway, Bob, some of our guys had rifles and were used to hunting game at long range. A musket's effectiveness at 25 to 30 yards out gets dodgy. These guys were standing line abreast shooting at each other and losses overall were minimal. But you see, Bob, we had those frontiersmen who had rifles. So they started hunting British officers. Only officers were on horseback, so they were easy targets, being elevated in plain sight. The officers on foot were also easy to target and eliminate with a high rate of efficiency, and from a much longer distance than the muskets would ever allow. Now Bob, these guys weren't in a line abreast, they were behind trees and bushes and other natural points of ambuscade. The losses of officers in one theater (I forgot which at the moment) caused the British to hold a parlay with the rebels to request that they stop targeting their officers specifically. The British were fine with taking their chances with musket fire since it was inaccurate, but they didn't like the idea of a suicide mission. (I forgot how that parlay went.)
But the point here, Bob, is that we were taking out their command and control structure. We were eliminating their leadership. Now let me put it in terms you'll understand, Bob, we were taking out their quarterbacks. We were taking out the brains behind the brawn. You've seen that happen many a Sunday, Bob.
The rifles were a far superior technology to muskets. They didn't win us our Independence, Bob, but they most certainly helped. But their most important reason for existence at that time was to kill the elite officer corps in the British army. If one of those boys had've been able to take a shot at ol' King George, he'd have killed him, too. Bob, we have guns to kill kings and lords. Now the Forefathers, being the geniuses they were, knew that a free people needed to have access to the same weaponry as the government for a couple of reasons, Bob. The first was a fight on equal footing. The other, and this is the important one, Bob, was to allow us citizens when necessary to kill our politicians, too. So Bob, guns are for hunting, just not what or who you think. The right to own weapons is the right that keeps us Free from totalitarian schmucks like youself, Bob.
Thanks for listening, Bob.
-
So Bob, guns are for hunting, just not what or who you think.
And that's the name of THAT tune.
Well done, Rick.
-
In other words we, the people, are not sophisticated or intelligent enough to handle the responsibility of firearms. The gun makes us stupid and psychotic. Now, I'm not stupid or naive. I know that there are some immature and unbalanced people out there. But gun laws don't prevent them from having guns. And forcing me to be their victim isn't the solution.
That always pisses me off, too, 21CT, because I have personal experience with it.
I am and have always been a scrapper. I take no guff although I don't look for a fight. Once I began carrying concealed, it became an imperative to de-escalate and walk away and that's worked out very well.
I no longer feel compelled to argue with those who have no power to make decisions, so in this regard, I do escalate up the chain of command until I get to someone who has the authority to settle an issue to my satisfaction -- and without feeling the "need" to pull out and wave around my gun.
Some of this may merely be a function of getting older, but I'm very aware of the possible unpleasant consequences of an unnecessary confrontation, so I'm a bit less mouthy. (I still think it, though. You can take the girl out of Jersey, but you cannot take Jersey out of the girl.)
-
Shovels and spades should go too. The Russians would hone their entrenching tools as sharp as a razor and... oh, yeah, razors should be banned too. And pencils and...
-
And Crazy Glue. Just because I hate the ineffective stuff.
-
And Crazy Glue. Just because I hate the ineffective stuff.
I've found it to be very effective at gluing fingers together.
-
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people....Costas has it all wrong.
-
Once I began carrying concealed, it became an imperative to de-escalate and walk away and that's worked out very well.
Absolutely brilliant point, Pandora. And it's what the gun ban people refuse to see: an intelligent, rational (I almost said "mature" but didn't want you to think I meant "old") attitude toward concealed carry. There are two things I never lose sight of while carrying: first, while the gun protects me, I also protect the gun. And my right to carry the gun. I'm very scrupulous to obey every law while carrying concealed- even (maybe especially) traffic laws. With great power comes great responsibility. This is not a bad thing. It makes me a better citizen because, contrary to what Costas thinks, I get calmer while carrying concealed. Not angrier, not more excitable.
Second, the gun is not used for punishment. I'll never draw it in anger. It's for protection. If my pride is threatened I can survive that encounter without a gun. With my rapier-like wit. If a life is threatened then that's different. I'm prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect life.
And that's my answer whenever I get asked why I carry a gun. (My wife is British- her family asks that question a LOT).
I carry a gun to protect life.
-
Once I began carrying concealed, it became an imperative to de-escalate and walk away and that's worked out very well.
Absolutely brilliant point, Pandora. And it's what the gun ban people refuse to see: an intelligent, rational (I almost said "mature" but didn't want you to think I meant "old") attitude toward concealed carry. There are two things I never lose sight of while carrying: first, while the gun protects me, I also protect the gun. And my right to carry the gun. I'm very scrupulous to obey every law while carrying concealed- even (maybe especially) traffic laws. With great power comes great responsibility. This is not a bad thing. It makes me a better citizen because, contrary to what Costas thinks, I get calmer while carrying concealed. Not angrier, not more excitable.
Second, the gun is not used for punishment. I'll never draw it in anger. It's for protection. If my pride is threatened I can survive that encounter without a gun. With my rapier-like wit. If a life is threatened then that's different. I'm prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect life.
And that's my answer whenever I get asked why I carry a gun. (My wife is British- her family asks that question a LOT).
I carry a gun to protect life.
Excellent post 21CT. I would add one modifier to your last sentence, not because your point is lacking as is, but because it is an additional fact that offers us further clarification and justification.
I carry a gun to protect life from evil.
It goes without saying, but perhaps it shouldn't. We carry to protect the innocent, but who we are protecting is only a part of the equation that ignores an important reality that cedes ground to the Left. Without a clear, doggedly insistent recognition and verbalization to the society at large of exactly from whom we are protecting the innocent, we lose an opportunity. The nature of those who would willfully harm others is the problem that needs reckoning, not the method of those of us who would respond to it.