“Each AK-47 Paper Model Kit comes with all the materials and instructions to construct this amazingly life-like paper model of an AK-47. [via]
Here’s a solution to the Anti-2nd Amendment (Anti-Self-Defense) crowd.
I propose that every child over the age of 10 be instructed in the safe handling and use of firearms; and that every adult shall be required to purchase, carry and display either a genuine weapon or a paper facsimile (painted flat black) at all times. The criminal element will be unnerved and uncertain as to who might return fire.
Licensed law-abiding citizens who desire to may carry the real deal, while those who are scared of the prospect of having to defend themselves with weaponry may use this inexpensive biodegradable camouflage and hope that a thug doesn’t challenge them with a flick of the Bic to the barrel. If that happens, the masquerade is as effective as a blackened bratwurst in a toilet paper tube.
But that won’t happen because Mister Gangbang can’t be sure that the real deal isn’t aimed at Mister Happy by an unseen bystander – with a bright red laser sighted on his cojones.
Pew.
Tags: 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, Leftists, Overnight Open Thread, US constitution
Not very funny.
This latest case near Rochester, NY really shows how futile it all is. There are no solutions as long as that kind of violent lashing out remains so prevalent among males. It’s in the culture, and there’s no easy fix.
Couldn’t we at least force them to buy a faux American rifle? Mini-14 or AR-15? Hell, Winchester 94, for that matter.
And I suppose it is “beating a dead horse”, but in response to assertions made on the blog yesterday that discussions of insurrection against the US government (or presumeably any other government) constituted treason, I suggest that people holding such views do a bit of refreshing on the justifications for such that are the foundation of the country…
And I would also ask that such persons keep in mind that perhaps the most major root cause of the American revolution was what was considered unfair taxation, and that the trigger for the revolt was the attempted confiscation of arms. Now, to be certain, King George III and the English parliament considered all of this treasonous, but the United States of America was formally based on a different philosophy. To declare that viewpoints faithfully adhering to the very foundational document of the country are somehow treasonous seems dubious to me. You can legitimately argue that matters have not reached the point of a justifiable revolution at this point -- that is a matter of opinion. But to state that the very idea of revolution is treason is to ignore the very foundations this country was built upon.
Your mileage may vary…
@ Moe Katz:
Wasn’t intended to be funny. It was mostly opinion and snippy sarcasm in response to recent left wing idiocy -- should have been obvious.
@ Moe Katz:
With freedoms comes risks. You cannot eliminate them, except by eliminating the freedoms, and even that has PROVEN totally ineffectual or even counter-productive, time and again. Life is a risky business, and everybody loses in the end.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein
Enact Constitutional Carry in all fifty States.
Prohibit all Helpless Victim Zones.
A Citizen has a God given Right to defend themselves at all times regardless of where they may be at any given time.
If a Person can not be trusted with a weapon; why then are they trusted to freely roam the streets??
A Good Guy with a gun can stop a Murderer with a gun from becoming a Mass Murderer.
When deterrence works, nobody gets hurt.
Deterrence will not stop every one. That’s when a gun is needed.
When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
Mike C. wrote:
Okay, you’re saying that the occasional mass murder is a fair price to pay for second amendment rights. Not everyone will share that view, but your position is refreshingly honest and certainly defensible.
I happen to think high capacity semi-automatic weapons and magazines should not be in the hands of ordinary citizens, but I also realize it is impractical to put the genie back in the bottle. So there is no simple solution. But I’m not going to glorify the damn things.
Bunk X wrote:
But you seem more concerned about the threat to gun rights than the senseless deaths and the threat to public safety. That’s why your attempt at satire fell a bit short for me.
Last time I checked the United States was the only Country with a Second Amendment, but mass killings have been happening all over the World. Where’s the connection??
(Hint: There isn’t one.)
@ Da_Beerfreak:
The exception proves the rule. The phenomenon of guys going postal with guns is far more frequent and deadly in the US than in any other developed country, and you know it. Yes, there have been isolated incidents in Norway, Canada, Australia, but it’s big news when it does happen outside the States.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Also, it’s a matter of debate what sort of weapons the Second Amendment mandates. They didn’t have 30-round magazines on AR-15s in the 18th century….
@ Moe Katz:
That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. What percentage of firearms deaths are rifles responsible for (Hint -- it’s an extremely small percentage)? Clubs, knives and hands/feet each are responsible for significantly more deaths every year, according to official statistics. Traffic accidents kill more people than firearms. Alcohol kills thousands, one way or another. Swimming pools kill more children than firearms every year. The so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect for TEN YEARS. It had exactly zero statistical effect on firearms deaths. Zip, zero, nada, zilch, bupkiss. So re-imposing it is the answer? Compared to deaths by rifle fire, more people die boating or fishing every year.
The purpose of the second amendment is crystal-clear from the writings of the founders. The purpose was to have the citizenry sufficiently well-armed to pose a constant threat to the government. It wasn’t about hunting, it wasn’t about trap or skeet shooting, it wasn’t even about personal self-defense.
The largest mass killing in US history was enabled with box cutters. The second and third largest were enabled with dynamite (Wall Street) and with a rental truck, fertilizer and fuel oil (OKC.)
Fortunately for people of opposing views, the Gang of Old Dead White Guys provided for you as well. See Article V of the US consitution. Want the second amendment eliminated or modified? Then amend the constitution. Otherwise, buzz off.
Moe Katz wrote:
Dumbest argument in the gun-grabbers’ arsenal (pardon the phrase.) Do you seriously believe, given the clear intent of the second amendment, that the founders would not have included the “latest and greatest” if it was available to them? Remember, crew-served weapons (cannons) owned by private individuals were instrumental in the American Revolution.
Mike C. wrote:
The standard view of historians is that it was to help keep Britain from recolonizing the place.
@ Mike C.:
Mike, they had no experience with firepower of the kind that is now in people’s hands, and in a far more urbanized society. We can only speculate.
‘Night fellas, I’ll be dealing with 8 or 9 inches of snow at our house in a few hours and need a bit of sleep.
Moe Katz wrote:
And that same firepower, and more, is possesed by the government, so if anything is out of whack, it is to the government’s advantage, not that of the citizenry. In the founders’ day, the citizenry possesed the same weapomry as the government. That is NOT the case today.
When it comes right down to the current situation, here’s my idea. Propose something that will work. An AWB/high-capacity magazine ban is already a proven failure. Got anything else?
Mike C. wrote:
“An AWB/high-capacity magazine ban is already a proven failure.”
Yup.
“Got anything else?”
Nope.
As I said before, the genie is out of the bottle. It would have been better if these weapons had never fallen into civilian hands, but now it’s too late.
I really don’t have any answers.
Mike C. wrote:
Got that right. Going by that logic the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press would be limited to covering only hand operated printing press that could produce only a single printed page per cycle using hand set type. There’s no way the Founders could have predicted the offset rotary printing press either.
Public Safety Map: Where Are The Journal News Employees In Your Neighborhood?…
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Not to mention radio, television and the internet…
Mike C. wrote:
No Free Speech for them either.
J. Madison was a genus, it’s too bad the politicians that came after him fucked up what he had done.
Moe Katz wrote:
You mean like breech loaders, bolt actions, lever actions, revolvers and self-contained metallic cartridges did?
You know, when I was in high school, people brought guns to school and left them in their car so they could go hunting after school. When I was a student living at Virginia Tech, in the very dorm where that nut started his killing spree, the first thing my roomate and I put up was our gun rack. Nobody got shot. You’re focusing on the wrong thing.
Moe Katz wrote:
Why do you say that? What do you want ot have if a crew of armed thugs kicks in your front door at 3:00AM? An AR 15 or your swinging dick? I’ll take the AR 15, and as many 30-round magazines as I can get. Of course, I live in a heavily armed population, so home-invasion robberies are very rare. Not non-existant, though.
Robert Morris had cannons
Mike C. wrote:
Less available firepower would limit the damage, that’s all -- Sandy Hook being a case in point. The latest guy near Rochester NY used a Bushmaster as well, dunno what capacity of magazines.
Notice, though, that it’s pretty well always disgruntled males doing it. Castrate all little boys and I bet you’d put a stop to it.
@ Iron Fist:
Morning, IF -- I’m just going to bed for a few hours. I was thinking of you! Castrate all the boy babies, I say, and you’d have no more mass shootings.
Moe Katz wrote:
Armed teachers would limit the damage, too, witout infringing on anybody’s civil rights. Point blank, I regard calls for gun control as calls for violating people’s civil rights, much the same as calls for segregation were calls to infringe on people’s civil rights. They are offensive and extreme, it doens’t matter if today’s so-called great TV personalities are the ones making them.
Moe Katz wrote:
After getting out of jail for 17 years for beating his grandmother to death with a hammer. Why was he ever let out of prison? HE went on to kill again, as so many violent criminals go on to repeat their crimes.
Iron Fist wrote:
A little sleepy juice would have saved lives
@ waldensianspirit:
That or life without parole. I mean, he beat an old woman to death with a hammer, for God’s sake. It gets to my biggest arguement against background checks. Someone comitts a felony, so they are considered too dangerous to have a firearm. Really? Martha Stewart is a felon, after all. OTOH, if someone is considered too dangerous to allow them to have a firearm, why are you letting them out of prison. As this guy proved, you can’t actually keep them from getting a gun, no matter what the laws are. Gun control is, at best, a placebo to take in place of doing anything substantive on the issue of crime and violence. But it is really worse than that. It is anti-civil rights legislation. It is no different in substance than the anti-civil rights people were in the 1960s, when Democrats like Robert Byrd were gfilibustering the civil rights act of 1964.
Iron Fist wrote:
Another preventable Government failure.
How does the Government react when it fails??
By punishing Folks that had nothing to do with it!!
And some Folks throw tantrums and others call names when a few suggests we fight back. Go figure…
@ Moe Katz:
Would you feel better if he had used a bolt or lever action rifle? it certainly would have done the job just as well. My Marlin lever gun holds 10 rounds of .44 magnum, and within 100 yards, I garauntee I can do better than 50 % on man-sized targets. And fired from a closed breech (no barrel-cylinder gap) through a rifle-legth barrel, that round is sufficient to kill animals larger than the average person. It looks old-timey enough to satisfy any Fudd, but that doesn’t mean it’s not seriously lethal.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Now isn’t the time for armed insurrection, though, and it really does no good to suggest, however veiled, that it is. All that does is make us look like a bunch of nuts. I disagree with 1389 that the election was stolen, also. If they were going to steal the election (and they would if they had the capacity; of that I don’t doubt), they would have stolen the House of Representatives in addition to the Presidency. Obama would have “won” a landslide victory and retaken the House, and his power would be totally unchecked. That isn’t what happened. What happened was that Mitt Romney ran a less than stellar campaign against a very formidible adversary, and he lost. There’s no magic required for that to happen, just him turning out his base in large numbers, and Mitt Romney not turning out his base in similar numbers. This campaign was always about base turnout, and Obama did a much better job at turning his voters out.
@ Mike C.:
I’ve got my Grandfather’s 8mm Mauser. That’ll do the trick. When the targets aren’t shooting back, magazine capacity doesn’t really matter so much. The key to stopping mass shootings is armed victims. This is common sense, but common sense isn’t so common today.
Iron Fist wrote:
Because -- so the argumentation here in Europe -- even murderers have to have a perspective in life.
@ Iron Fist:
It’s my opinion that the Right-wingers will not be the first to use violence. Nor should they. Guns and ammo are being bought for self-defence with the hope that they will never be needed for that. It must be made clear to the Moonbats that the Right-wingers aka Bitter Clingers, don’t want any trouble, but at the same time also making it clear that we will not back down either. We will not be bullied.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Agreed. I think there is a clear red line that we don’t want to cross. Just as the Colonists in 1775 didn’t go out looking for British to shoot, but instead waited on the British to come to them. It is the Left that wants violent revolution. People like Bill Ayers and Berdardine Dohrne. What we want, really, is a peaceful return to Constitutional principles. That is what we voted for in 1994, but the Republicans didn’t really deliver on it.
@ Guggi:
They have background checks for guns. We see how well those worked here, but this guy comitted his first murder with a hammer. There was nothing to stop him from going to the hardware store and buying a new hammer the day he got out of prison. This is how our “justice” system currently works. We don’t need more gun control. Gun Control was firmly in place (this was NY, after all), and gun control failed on multiple levels. What we needed here was keeping the criminal in jail in the first place. He should have never been released.
@ Iron Fist:
The message may sound very harsh to some, but the location of the red line has to be very clear if it is to have any value as a deterrence.
One side misunderstanding the other can be fatal. That goes for both sides.
Iron Fist wrote:
Like this one
@ Guggi:
Yes. Another one that didn’t get off was Tookie Williams. He got the death penalty, nd it was richly deserved. HE had celebrities and “intellectuals” lined up begging for clemancy for him, but he was a thug who didn’t know how to die like a man. I was glad they didn’t let him off. There is a place for rehabilitation, and some criminals do change, but for career criminals that is highly unlikely.
@ Iron Fist:
I wonder if we will see reported who plea bargained this guy down to a 17 year sentance. Also, how did he get the guns since NY is practically crazy with background checks. I have seen no answers unless someone has a link.
Oh boy, if only we could ban firearms like they did in the UK, peace and love will reign, crime would drop to zero, full employment will return, and the lion will lay down with the lamb.
/
Children as young as ten found armed with knives, machetes, axes and other weapons in school
New thread.
MikeA wrote:
Don’t have a link but read elsewhere speculation that the weapons used were stolen from nearby home burglaries. Other than that, your guess is as good as mine.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Iron Fist wrote:
In small ways has not that line already been crossed?
Remember that banker who’s kid was terrorized by my an unruly mob protesting in his yard while the police watched and did nothing, in the wake of TARP?
Union violence in Milwaukee, and more recently in Michigan.
OWS
Moe Katz wrote:
Moe: I’d like to expand on Mike C’s comment in #5 that “life is a risky business”. The leftists and statists demand that 100% of the people be 100% safe 100% of the time and that they (leftists and statists) be the guarantor of that safety. They want to legislate or adjudicate every possible risk that may confront us. Case in point: The 55 MPH law was passed in the mid 70′s and was proclaimed to have saved tens of thousands of lives. If saving lives was the goal, why didn’t they set the limit at 20 MPH? Further, if they had set the limit at 0 MPH, there would be no deaths from car wrecks. The 100% safety notion is simply a ruse by the leftists to control the masses by limiting their freedoms and choices. Everyone who wants to be 100% safe should stay in their homes, lock the doors and avoid hazards such a stoves, ovens, sharp pointy utensils, guns and high capacity magazines.
@ citizen_q:
It is coming, but it hasn’t been crossed yet. The mob violence should have been met with an armed man in the house in case they stormed the place; there’s a reason to have an “assault rifle” right there), and callse to the police. If the local police won’t handle it, call the County Sherrif. If he won’t handle it, call the State troopers. You have options. Those crowds could have and should have been dispursed.
@ Iron Fist:
Agreed.
In the case of the protest in the bankers yard, I believe police were on-site, not sure what agency, allowed the trespass and did nothing. The banker was not home and his teenage son was cowering in fear in the home.
@ huckfunn:
And, for the love of God, get rid of your bathtub. Do you have any idea at all of how many innocent lives are lost due to slips and falls in those infernal devices?
huckfunn wrote:
@ huckfunn:
This is the actual text of my reply to Huck:
Huck, I’m up from my sleep and replying now. First, I’m not an American and so this is just an observation from the folks that live upstairs. I think this all comes down to choices and trade-offs that your society has to make. I’m not the one making these choices; Canadians are not allowed magazines of more than 10 rounds, and I suppose I could have some impact on that if I wanted to lobby on the issue for a complete AWB in this country or, on the other hand, legalization of 30-round clips. I’m really not taking a position here, just noting that it does boil down to how much one values certain gun rights and how many lives you feel is a fair price to pay for those rights. Americans will have to decide.
@ huckfunn:
As you say, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. Should you be able to carry a knife? A suitcase nuclear device? Society must decide how the constitution is interpreted in the light of contemporary circumstances and values.
@ Moe Katz:
Precisely the sort of thinking that got us crap like Roe v. Wade.
lobo91 wrote:
If the Second Amendment had been in the original constitution it wouldn’t be called the Second Amendment.