Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August 21st, 2009

The left might be amusing, in a grinning idiot sort of way, if they didn’t think their crippled sense of reason and curious turns of thought about “how things should be” HAD to be imposed upon the rest of us who know better.  I returned to the thread I talked about in yesterday’s post, and found that these were a topic of discussion.

The trap had been baited (I really wish I had thought of it), and predictably, a commenter, we’ll call her Lib1 wandered in and bit the cheese:

On another note, that guy carrying the gun in the video Elric showed as well as the radio host interviewing admitted it was staged. Regardless of that, I’m sure there were some “racially biased” individuals that were also carrying guns.Either way, guns around any president is ridiculous in this day and age.[Emp. Mine]

After such a perfect pitch, how do you not swing?  My response:

Regardless of that, I’m sure there were some “racially biased” individuals that were also carrying guns.

Aside from the fact that your certainty represents an omniscience not in evidence, it is part of a larger contempt of a free people exercising their Consitutional rights. Living free means taking responsibility for yourself and your actions, and accepting the consequences, even bad ones. As A free person, I will accept bad consequences, rather than continue to surrender my rights to a state determined to give me the security of a child in exchange for all I have and all rights I have been invested with. Would I have done it? No, but only because the howling choruses of simpering wimpletons, too afraid to live like free people, would once again turn their hand-wringging tirades to bear on the whatever sinister motives they would eagerly to ascribe to the rest of us.

Either way, guns around any president is ridiculous in this day and age.

Yeah, those Secret Service agents should not [knock, not ‘not’]that crap off, right now!

When you grow up, and quit deciding what is right for the rest of us, and cheerleading for those who are determined to give that to us, whether we want it or not, then you might start to appreciate the genius inherent the form of limited government that Congress keeps trying to usurp for itself. Until then, enjoy your cud, sheep.

Still no answer from Lib1.  I imagine that it is more difficult than usual to draft a “Shut Up!” for that, but, where there’s a will, there’s a way. 

In the meantime, LibHost took it upon himself to respond:

BiW, let me give you the real simplistic view on this:

There are only two reasons to own a gun.

1. Recreation (hunting, target practice, skeet shooting, etc.)
2. Shoot other people

Now you will of course bring up “self defense” but that implies you are defending yourself from someone else with a gun who plans to shoot you with it which brings us back to reason #2.

We used to have a society where everyone carried their sidearm. It was called the Wild West. It was called wild for a reason. I prefer living in a civilized society.

This may no longer be the case but the last time I checked, British cops didn’t carry guns. They carried night sticks.

Regardless, I’m ok with cops carrying guns to defend me from the loonies who have them and should not have them.

Oh … by the way BiW, could you possibly explain what I need with an AK-47 (or AK-15 or whatever) at a public event? Ahhh don’t bother ,,,, I know the answer, you need it to kill the ten guys who came with regular pistols to shoot at you.

Now, truth is, I like LibHost.  He’s wrong on just about every topic imaginable, but I like the guy.  Having said that, there was just too much low hanging fruit to ignore:

BiW, let me give you the real simplistic view on this:

There are only two reasons to own a gun.

1. Recreation (hunting, target practice, skeet shooting, etc.)
2. Shoot other people

“Simplistic” is right. I’m sure that the fact that the Americans had only recently fought a war in which the government they sought to separate themselves from made deliberate moves on arms and ammunition that could have been used against them never entered into their thinking at all when they proposed the Second Amendment. Yes, how silly is it to think that a fledgling nation, not too many years removed from the tyranny of a government that deemed itself the epitome of “civilization” at the time might not recognize that a check on such tyranny might be an armed populace? I’m sure that “recreation” was paramount in their concerns.

Now you will of course bring up “self defense” but that implies you are defending yourself from someone else with a gun who plans to shoot you with it which brings us back to reason #2.

No, it also implies that I am defending myself from a person who might be a threat without a gun, like say an addict brandishing a needle. You also forgot defense of property. I have lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods, and when a stranger is busting into my home at 2 am, the general assumption is that he is up to no good in doing so. Rather than wait to see if this person is going to hurt my family or fleeing my home and surrending the things I worked hard to provide for my family, I prefer a more permanent means of helping the offender break out of a life of crime. The revidicism rate is considerably lower, and fewer tax dollars are spent on a prison stay where they learn to be better criminals.

We used to have a society where everyone carried their sidearm. It was called the Wild West. It was called wild for a reason. I prefer living in a civilized society.

This may no longer be the case but the last time I checked, British cops didn’t carry guns. They carried night sticks.

When using an example to make your point, you might want to educate yourself about it first. When the Brits moved on private firearms a few years ago, they removed a major deterrent to violent crime, which has been on the rise ever since. And once they took the guns, the nogoodniks simply reverted to knives. Stabbings have increased tremendously. You choose to be unarmed, it is your choice, I’m not stopping you. Please don’t violate my rights and presume to stop me.

Regardless, I’m ok with cops carrying guns to defend me from the loonies who have them and should not have them.

In the coming days of shrinking budgets, increased unemployment and economic malaise, if the police are your only resort for defense, then by all means, accept that. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Oh … by the way BiW, could you possibly explain what I need with an AK-47 (or AK-15 or whatever) at a public event? Ahhh don’t bother ,,,, I know the answer, you need it to kill the ten guys who came with regular pistols to shoot at you.

Why would I have to profess a need to exercise a right? Have you ever asked any one why they felt the need to engage in political or religious discourse? Have you ever asked someone why they demanded authorities show them a warrant before entering their home and searching for something. Why do you apparently believe some rights have to be justified? As for this particular instance, I have already said I wouldn’tdo it. The sanctimony and hand-wringing from the usual suspects is more than I want to accept. I suppose if I subscribed to the liberal world view in which no one could or would ever be held responsible for his or her actions, I might be alarmed by the presence of a tool strapped [spelling corrected here] to another person, to whom I might automatically ascribe an inability to act responsibly, since it is beyond the scope of a typical liberal’s worldview to believe otherwise, but since I don’t see the world that way, I don’t see the need for the squealing histrionics[spelling corrected here] that I would expect from such a display.

No answer yet.  That’s disappointing.  Twice I have asked a question that isn’t too difficult, and yet I have no answer.

As long as I live, I don’t think that I will ever understand how a normal person succumbs to the mindset that says its ok for a liberal to choose to abbrogate other’s rights on the basis of their fears or feelings of offense, etc.

**********************************************************************************************

LibHost responded. For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave his remarks in italics and mine normal print:

You’ve written a long and heroic defense of your 2nd amendment rights, BiW.

Not really, but its nice that you think so.

First, this is not 1776.

And it is not 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, or 1789 when the Bill of Rights was ratified (just so I don’t get accused of saying something untrue that I didn’t say.)

I understand the genesis of the 2nd amendment and don’t you think, health care be damned, that it’s a bit premature to take up arms against the government? Is it really that bad?

HHHHmmmm. Where to start? In order, I guess.
Are you implying that because a right important enough to write into our primary legal source document is old and you are so gentile that you feel it is no longer necessary, it is subject to ridicule and hyperbole if you cannot simply waive your hand and make it disappear? I don’t recall advocating taking up arms against the government. What I did suggest is that the wise men who drafted the law did so because they understood the tendency of governments of men to drift into tyrannical behavior, and because of it, they took pains to ensure that the people had the right to be armed as much as a means of defense against the tyrannical impulses of government as defense of our person against the transgression of others and the “recreational” uses you would diminish. It is a way to keep those who serve us in memory of their role, lest they determine to reverse them (and borrowing to the point where increasing tax burdens will be necessary just to service the debt comes damn close), but no, supporting the right to bear arms is not a call to arms against the government. Please avoid putting such words in my mouth when I take such great pains to be clear.

Second, if I understand my law properly, you cannot shoot an intruder in your home unless he demonstrates that he is going to use lethal force against you.

Entirely dependent on what state you live in. Some states have enacted laws that basically say you have a duty to withdraw, even in the curtiledge of your own home, which disrespects centuries of law regarding one’s home and hearth, and others like Texas, have specifically upheld the right to use deadly force to protect property. In states like that, as the shooter, you will most certainly face a grand jury, however, as long as you were defending your property, it is almost a certainty that the grand jury will not indict you.

You certainly cannot shoot him as he is running out of your house with your stereo. Try it sometime and see how fast the cops arrest your ass. This ain’t primetime TV. I don’t have the stats handy but there is a high incidence of folks with your delusions of defense of self and property who only wind up wounding themselves and loved ones accidentally.

If you’re going to continue to argue the law with me, would it be too much to ask if I am debating an attorney? You forgive me if I don’t accept your word about those stats. Experience in politics and law has made me a firm believer in the maxim “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”

If I’m not mistaken, NYC threw Bernie Goetz’s ass in prison for “defending himself” on a subway some 30 years ago.

You are mistaken. NYC “threw his ass in prison” on a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, despite having been charged with that, attempted murder, and first degree assault charges. He was eventually sentanced to a year and served eight months. One of his “victims” later falsely reported to police that Goetz had tried to kidnap him, and later held an 18 yr old pregnant woman at gunpoint while an associate sodomized and robbed her. Yet another “victim” went on to commit two robberies.

Third, as I said before, you have the “right” to go to church on a pogo stick. It doesn’t mean you’re going to do it.

I saw that, and as you can read, I did not dispute it.

There is no sensible reason to bring a gun to a political rally, particularly outside a venue where the President is speaking.

Again, I did not dispute this. I took issue with you asking me to explain why I’d need to carry a semi-automatic rifle to a “public event”. No one should have to justify the exercise of a right, especially to those who are hostile to such rights. I already stated that I wouldn’t do it. For me, it simply isn’t worth the harrassment and the whining. It also gives the press even more reason to not do their jobs and cast a critical eye on this bill, and others. Much more sensational to talk about those wacky gun-freaks, who by the way, abided by the law, and in all respects acted legally.

I’d have to go do the research but I’d bet dollars to donuts not a single one of our American assassins or would be assassins (e.g. Hinckley) was carrying his fire arm illegally … i.e. they had permits to carry.

Well, Oswald didn’t need a permit to own a rifle, and in the case of the assasins before him, the current nanny state had not been brought into existance, so I doubt very much that there would have been a valid concept of “illegal” firearms possession. However, if you are trying to imply that all “legal” firearms owners have them because they harbor ambitions to kill people, you are being uneccessarily insulting to those people while laboring an irrelevant point. Which still is indicative of nothing, by the way. This whole tangent still appears to be rooted in the belief that having a gun necessitates the “need” to use it for nefarious purposes. People are killed every day in car accidents. Some due to drunken driving, some other factors. Do we ban cars so that we can keep people safe? Do we ban alcohol? Seriously, where does it end?

When a bunch of folks in a crowd outside a presidential appearance are armed, how are we to tell who is potentially dangerous?

Well, I suppose that is between the Secret Service, the citizen, and the lawyers and judges. Or you could just ask Sensico to find them for you. She seems to think that she can divine the fact that some who attended that event were racists. I’m sure it would be even easier to determine which ones were the wanna-be assasins.

Sorry BiW, it’s bad form to come to a protest rally packin’ heat.

True enough, Kent State seems to symbolize this well. Oh wait, that didn’t count because it was government employees who acted irresponsibly. I’m sure that could have worked out just fine if someone had called the police, though.

Again, I wouldn’t do it. Some things are not worth the hue and cry, but it really isn’t your place to question a person’s “need” to exercise a right.

Read Full Post »