YAY!!! Piers Morgan today threatened to leave the U.S. because of the negative reaction he has received over his anti 2nd Amendment rantings. Good! The sooner the better. Can you make it tonight? Don’t let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out. Hasta la vista, douchebag! Incidentally, the petition to deport this moron now has over 91,000 signatures. Oh, by the way; Piers wants us all to know that he knows a thing or two about guns.
Well, I do know a bit about guns, actually. My brother’s a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. My sister married a colonel who trained Princes William and Harry at Sandhurst. My uncle was a major in the Green Howards.
BWHAHAHAHA, SNORT!
Read his whole whining, sniveling piece of crap here.
Hat tip… UK Daily Mail. Image via Sipsey Street Irregulars.
[Deleted]
@ Macker:
Just say it, he is an areshole.
And if the issue here was about guns, I might care.
But it’s not. It’s about the difference between being a citizen and being a subject.
That’s something he doesn’t know about.
so all the men in his family are warriors and he is a…?
actually he a foreign national, out of uniform, attempting to overthrow our government, and it could be said in a time of war… deportation is not usual penalty, juss sayin.
coldwarrior wrote:
coldwarrior wrote:
… twit.
Having just wasted 2 minutes skimming his little screed, it’s pretty clear that he actually doesn’t know much about guns.
WTF is a “Magnum 45 handgun”?
Is that something Tom Selleck used on TV?
coldwarrior wrote:
coldwarrior wrote:
girlie man.
Reposted from downthread, just for fun (and cringworthy photo’s). Not quite the hello kitty that PrincessNatasha was looking for
@ Calo:
It’s not hello kitty but… (maybe Lobo can convert it to an inline photo)
http://www.jimsgunsupply.com/DuraCoat/dc/Duracoat_AR_hotpink_51609.jpg
check the duracoat photos link on his site, some of what’s been done to the firearms there should be criminal…
/galt
coldwarrior wrote:
Northern Ireland? really?
@ brookly red:
NI was a hard and dangerous assignment back when.
lobo91 wrote:
hot load in a 1911?
brookly red wrote:
With a mustache.
coldwarrior wrote:
well it could explain where his views on gun control come from…
brookly red wrote:
unarmed citizens are nothing more than subject.
@ CynicalConservative:
She did post some type of Hello Kitty gun she wanted at one time on a blog.
I’m the perfect candidate for Lobo to train -- no bad habits to unlearn.
coldwarrior wrote:
indeed. subject to what, is the question:)
@ brookly red:
He just threw some things out there that he thought sounded important. After all, it was written for a British paper, where his fellow subjects have been disarmed and probably don’t know any better.
Later, he talks about how an AR-15 “when modified” can fire “6 rounds per second.” Never mind that “modifying” one to fire full auto is a federal crime, and that nobody that I’ve ever heard of has used such a gun to kill anyone.
But it sounds scary.
brookly red wrote:
to whomever is armed.
whomever has the monopoly on violence.
@ Calo:
hey miss calo,
hows that kindle?
momcat likes her K-fire
the girl likes it more though
lobo91 wrote:
That’s the gun that I pretended to have while I was riding my Big Wheel!
@ Calo:
You’re correct about that.
Although if you’re interested in getting a carry permit, you’ll have to find an instructor there. Texas requires a specific program of instruction, taught by a state-authorized instructor.
I am guessing that Morgan’s brother bog-washed Piers a couple times as a kid. And maybe again last weekend.
coldwarrior wrote:
growing up in da Bronx I learned all I need to know about gun control…
I got da gun, I is in control.
rain of lead wrote:
It is so much better than reading on a frikkin phone screen.
I’m currently finishing up a book called The Piano about a young girl caught up in the Chinese Cultural Revolution under Mao.
Then, the Hobbit will be next up on my read list.
guac recipe
the best ever
3 avacados
1 large spanish onion diced
3 diced roasted peppers of your choice i prefer ancho and chipotle
very finely chopped bacon
3-4 oz crumbled goat cheese.
fresh ground pepper
a little sea salt
a dash of tabasco.
juice of 2 limes
mix to the consistency you like, let sit in the fridge for 3-6 hours.
lobo91 wrote:
460 Rowland, I would get one but I have way too much to load for as it is.
Who am I kidding, I will probably get one for my birthday.
coldwarrior wrote:
hows about I leave out the bacon and add a squeeze of lime?
@ coldwarrior:
Filed under brisket recipes.
Best if left ignored.
huckfunn wrote:
He’s a bloody wanker!
lobo91 wrote:
Burst is hard to keep on target across a room, I would keep it semi.
@ coldwarrior:
yum
@ brookly red:
i forgot the limes!
added.
yeah, the fine chopped bacon is very optional
Calo wrote:
why do you hate on avocados?
Calo wrote:
cool!
more for me!
coldwarrior wrote:
i need 20 push-ups.
we ‘appropriated’ that guac recipe from here
http://www.bibabeaver.com/
@ Calo:
they can do waaay more than what you think also
plenty of free or cheap books that give you tips and tricks to unlock
extra features
@ brookly red:
Superfood rights!
/
brookly red wrote:
how about a shot of tito’s and i low crawl to the garage for another pint of murphy’s?
@ Prebanned:
I’m still waiting for someone to explain what difference the size of the magazines Lanza used would have made when shooting a room full of 7 year olds.
I sort of doubt that they would have rushed him while he was reloading…
coldwarrior wrote:
works for me… but remember the lime next time.
brookly red wrote:
YESSIR!
lobo91 wrote:
again all show no go, he could have done the same with a baseball bat… but in the Bronx the kids woulda rushed him and shanked his ass too.
Mailing it in.
ht -- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
brookly red wrote:
took his pocket money and bought pizza and some joints… sold the gun and brought the money home to Ma for rent.
woah….
SCATTERED SHOWER OF JOURNALISM? CNN CONFRONTS JESSE JACKSON OVER CHICAGO’S HIGH GUN VIOLENCE DESPITE DRACONIAN GUN LAWS
During a segment on Chicago reportedly hitting the sad milestone of its 500th homicide in 2012 (there is now a discrepancy), the Rev. Jesse Jackson was asked to explain how gun violence in Chicago can be so high despite the Draconian gun laws. Additionally, the host pointed out that if such gun laws were enacted on a larger scale, couldn’t we expect a similar rise in violence in other big cities?
Jackson squirmed, and even oddly tried to blame gun ranges for the massacre: “You know, I think about Newtown, for example, they have three or four gun ranges. Now, there are no gun ranges in Chicago. [They] have almost no unemployment. … Newtown is so different than the complexity of the urban crisis.”
But the host didn’t back down.
@ rain of lead:
when it doubt…
BLAME WHITEY!!!!
Bumr50 wrote:
hell yes, how else do the kid learn to milk the system? what the fuck you sayin bitch? does is my days off and I gots a contract
@ Bumr50:
someone, no doubt someone who has limited math skills, will defend the teachers by saying:
well…they ONLY work part of the year so their absence rate is higher…
rain of lead wrote:
the same jessy jackon that stood on the balcony with MLK? the same jessy jackson that claims to be a reverend? Jesus made it clear what the deal was with hypocrites… they too shall have their reward.
@ rain of lead:
Colorado Springs has an exceptionally high level of gun ownership. It has four times the number of concealed carry permit holders as Denver, per capita.
There are an average of about 24 homicides here per year (about half the national average for a city this size).
I’d love to hear him explain that.
lobo91 wrote:
I BLAME WHITEY!
coldwarrior wrote:
Actually, there probably is some truth to that idea.
They probably get the same number of sick days per year as other public sector employees in the area, but their work year is considerably shorter (and you know they take every sick day they’re authorized).
lobo91 wrote:
well yes but their day is 6 hours…
lobo91 wrote:
they should only get 3/4 of what everyone else gets.
@ lobo91:
@ brookly red:
i’ve lost a couple of friends who became teachers. they got an earful one night and never hang out with me or my bro again. it was a horrible evisceration.
lobo91 wrote:
well it’s obvious duh, you racists have no black people to shoot at
brookly red wrote:
WERD!
coldwarrior wrote:
now, now stop with the class envy…
lobo91 wrote:
Well, that is where Paid Time Off, or PTO, is preferable to sick vs vacation days.
Unused PTO is usually able to be cashed in at years end.
Sick and Vacation days unused are just wiped off the books.
Gwad I love NY… where else can you order a “lunch special” at 11:16 PM ?
brookly red wrote:
no no no…in chitown all da ganstahs have guns
in colorado springs all the honkeys have guns.
its obvious, kraka dont know how to use gunz.
coldwarrior wrote:
what is dat an AM station?
brookly red wrote:
WERD Atlanta was the first radio station owned and operated by African-Americans.
brookly red wrote:
Yinzer speak for WORD.
Good Lord, I am having problems with Northern speak tonight.
coldwarrior wrote:
it went out of business.
@ Calo:
Or not.
Damn Yinzers.
Calo wrote:
Calo wrote:
Yinzers? sounds anti-Semitic to me
coldwarrior wrote:
pardon me if I didn’t buy GM stock…
http://gawker.com/5971256/fox-news-refers-to-the-westboro-baptist-church-as-a-left+wing-cult
This gawker writer needs the shit slapped out of him.
He doesn’t even attempt to justify his reasoning, and of course the peanut gallery is in worship mode.
Hey moron, Fred Phelps is a democrat, has always been a democrat, ran for political office a dozen times as a democrat, supported and campaigned for Al Gore. Not to mention they also protest at military funerals which the RIGHT provides security for.
brookly red wrote:
YOI!
Jessie Jackson looks old, tired and stupid.
@ Prebanned:
Jr. has put him through the ringer.
Bumr50 wrote:
Wringer.
Grr…we really need the death penalty for idiots who program computer viruses.
I just picked up a trojan on my brand new laptop that’s trying to con me into paying a $300 “fine” for supposedly “viewing child pornography” (and no, I was not).
As a nice added touch it says that if I do it again, I’ll have to appear before the US Supreme Court.
I wonder how many people are dumb enough to pay them?
@ lobo91:
My brother-in-law had that happen while he was on my father-in-law’s laptop, FREAKED OUT, and called me.
I says : “Do you think that the FBI could be bought off with a $300 Visa gift card?”
@ lobo91:
I didn’t get that virus on my new laptop, but I really dislike Windows 8.
What were they smoking in Seattle when they put this ditty together?
lobo91 wrote:
actually those shits like the Nigerian lottery are probes… they are looking for people dumb to respond, even if in anger, and once they make contact …
Frogs up 13-zilch over Spartans at the half. Can anyone please ‘splain to me why TCU is wearing blue hats instead of purple? Obamunist plot? Also, good bowl week sofar for Texas. Baylor stomped UCLA and Texas beat Oregon State in a close one.
@ Calo:
I guess it’s all about ‘Touch’ technology?
I haven’t experienced it.
Bumr50 wrote:
My first reaction was “Umm…what? You want me to go to Walgreens and get you a gift card? WTF?”
And then I saw the “Supreme Court” thing and started laughing. When I scrolled further down the page, I notice a bunch of stuff that looked like it was written by someone who doesn’t actually speak English.
It took me about 5 minutes to get rid of it, but I’m kind of annoyed that the programs I already have installed didn’t catch it in the first place.
@ huckfunn:
I wonder what a dozen wings will set you back at the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl?
Will there be crazy sprinkler action?
@ lobo91:
He ended up doing a system restore.
Calo wrote:
Mine has Windows 7. I skipped all the ones that came with 8.
Bumr50 wrote:
All I had to do was restart in Safe Mode and have Malwarebytes scan it. It found it in about 3 minutes.
It should have blocked it in the first place, though.
@ lobo91:
I sent my husband out on a mission.
He thought he did me a favor by getting the latest and greatest crap.
Calo wrote:
Windows 8 was made specifically for tablets and other computers with touch screens. It doesn’t work well on regular laptops.
lobo91 wrote:
/I just got an e-mail from the west coast liberty center demanding that I send them cheetos and mountain dew or they would expose me as a racist…
@ lobo91:
Here’s several free anti-malware and anti-spyware programs that I use and update several times weekly. I don’t get viruses.
Malwarebytes
Super Anti Spyware
Spyware Blaster
Spybot Search and Destroy
huckfunn wrote:
@ brookly red:
I haven’t had any problems. I also have Do Not Track Me Plus.
huckfunn wrote:
yes a good one…
huckfunn wrote:
oh and by the way the Blogmocracy is tracking me
brookly red wrote:
Heh! I blocked ‘em.
I’m gonna watch the game and call it a night.
G’nite, me bloogs.
@ lobo91:
Lotta that going around. Some friends came over last night and one described getting the same symptoms.
In addition to the list above, I’d add Kaspersky’s TDSS Rootkit Killer. Internet Septic Tank Engineer turned me on to that one, and it’s saved my ass twice.
http://download.cnet.com/Kaspersky-TDSSKiller/3000-2239_4-12684178.html
@ huckfunn:
G’nite!
G’nite all.
@ brookly red:
The Blogmocracy doesn’t track. They’ve always been a stalker blog.
@ Bumr50:
Oh! Really nice to see an artist in action.
I really wish I had that kind of talent.
Sleep well, Bumr and thank you for the video.
@ Calo:
The girl’s got hairy arms and is using the wrong hand, but other than that it’s a nice sketch.
As much as I love and respect Mark Steyn and the Blogmocracy, Piers Morgan is a shameless huckster making money off the blood of children and will never leave the USA voluntarily… We need to ignore Piers Morgan, not promote him. Only that will drive him away.
lobo91 wrote:
The six staff that were killed were all trying to stop Lanza, so I dunno.
That was a driveby post, by the way.
@ Moe Katz:
Yes they were, and not one of them had a weapon to do so.
It’s very unlikely that that having one or more of the school staffed armed would have stopped all the killings. There’s something like a 50-50 chance having one or more of the school staff armed would have reduced the number of killings. There’s an almost zero chance that having one or more of the school staff armed would have incresed the number of killings.
Playing the probabilities is always the way to go.
Bunk X wrote:
I’m responding to Lobo’s point quoted in my 106, about whether having to stop to reload might have saved some of the kids. Lanza was just a scrawny little adolescent, no Rambo, so there’s a good chance he could have been stopped by staff members barehanded if he’d run out of ammo. Moreover, some children might have had a chance to run away.
@ Mike C.:
Unarmed defenders leaves the odds at nothing.
So magazine capacity might indeed have made a difference, that’s my point.
The server is getting constipated again.
@ Bunk X:
Precisely my point.
@ Moe Katz:
Which, of course, justifies high capacity magazines for self-defense. Double-edged sword, and all that.
@ Mike C.:
Fair enough. High capacity magazines should be permitted for those in designated protective roles. Doesn’t necessarily follow that the general public ought to have ‘em.
@ Moe Katz:
It’s a moot point. If his ammo clip was shorter, bringing more loaded weapons would have worked.
The argument is inane. “Assault weapons” were banned, but that didn’t stop the Columbine massacre. Even decades ago, criminal assholes who couldn’t afford guns built their own. Those who didn’t had switchblades. Switchblades were made illegal, and they limited the blade lengths, too, but that never stopped robberies or stabbings.
You can’t make weapons disappear, because just about anything may be used as a weapon, including air.
@ Moe Katz:
Who is going to decide who is qualified to protect themselves? I don’t trust anyone to make that decision, even if I see a glowing halo over his head.
Bunk X wrote:
Oh, I agree -- I’m not arguing in favor of any new restrictions, because it seems to me that horse has long ago left the barn.
Bunk X wrote:
I’m talking about those designated to protect others, like the proposed school guard corps. Ideally, I wouldn’t want to see high capacity magazines in the hands of other citizens. But banning them may be impracticable.
@ Moe Katz:
Why not? Does the general public use their cars to deliberately run over people? Does the general public routinely assault each other when they’re collecting their mail? Does the general public eat their breakfast, lunch and supper in the produce aisle at the grocery store without paying?
You’ve got a very low opinion of law-abiding citizens who happen to be a huge majority in this country.
@ Moe Katz:
As a husband, a father and a U.S. Citizen, I have the right to protect myself and others PERIOD. If I get backup assistance from others, including law enforcement, all the better.
Bunk X wrote:
Sometimes everyone has to sacrifice a little freedom to avoid the harm that results when a few individuals abuse that freedom. I might have a Mercedes E-Class and be a safe freeway driver at 100 mph, but others might not have the vehicle or the skills to be safe at that speed, so I accept a speed limit of 70 or whatever….
Bunk X wrote:
Sorry, you have no absolute freedom to own any weapon you want in the pursuit of your self-defense. That is up to lawmakers, as representatives of the people, to decide. What if you want a suitcase nuke? Well you can’t have one.
@ Moe Katz:
“…like the proposed school guard corps.”
There are many schools in this country especially in the larger cities that have metal detectors and armed guards. Those armed guards are not shooting up kids.
You seem to be arguing inanities for trolling jollies or something. Have at it.
You have the right to defend yourself and your family with weapons that are permitted only.
@ Bunk X:
I think you misunderstand me. I’m saying that school guards have a very good case for being permitted high capacity magazines; ordinary citizens less so.
Moe Katz wrote:
I’ll agree with that -- as soon as I and my family members get their own state-supplied bodyguards. But since that’s not going to happen, and since we are on our own, we ARE the people in the “desgnated protective roles.” The majority opinion in DC v Heller makes that quite specific.
As far as trolling is concerned, my position is that I don’t like high capacity magazines, but suspect it’s too late to get rid of them. How radical is that?
@ Moe Katz:
Inanities. A suitcase nuke is not for self-defense. C’mon, Moe, you’re a smart guy. Why are you tossing out strawmen? I have the absolute right to own a firearm by the 2nd Amendment.
Moe Katz wrote:
Jesu-effing-Christe! There should be some analog to Godwin’s Law for morons who drag out the nuke argument.
Yes, I want nukes. On boomers. And an aircraft carrier. Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound? Ridiculous hyperbole is not exactly an impressive debate strategy.
@ Mike C.:
DC v Heller does not, to my knowledge, pertain to specific types of arms. Clearly, lawmakers in the US have the authority to allow and disallow different kinds of weapons.
Night fellas.
Oh, and BTW, please define “high-capacity magazine”, and in particular, the specific number of rounds that contitutes the upper limit. Be sure to rationaaly justify the specific number you have in mind.
@ Moe Katz:
If you don’t like high-capacity magazines, don’t get them. How many shots should be (dis)allowed? 15? 10? 6? 1?
If we could disarm all criminals, which is an impossibility due to the number of rocks on the earth and the number of hands and feet each of them has, maybe there would be no need for any sort of weapon.
Absurd.
@ Moe Katz:
Moving the goalposts. There is enough unenforced regulation in this country. Just wait until they outlaw poutine and Moulson’s and you’ll be singing a different song, eh?
as for me, running out of ammo in a desperate affair is a scary thought…I think anything above 20 rounds might be considered high cap…unless one considers the term useless
The ultimate defense -- running away.
Well, I’ll answer my own last question, then.
Let;s examine two groups of people in the US who commonly are armed for self-defense roles and see what they think is adequate. I refer, of course, to the police and the military. Police departments commonly use 3 weapons types -- full-sized semi-auto pistols, high capacity semi-auto or pump-action tactical shotguns, and AR-15 variants. The pistols commonly have magazine capacities in the 10-17 round range, depending on caliber. Shotguns typically 6-8 rounds. AR-15 variants are usually issued with 30 round magazines. For the military, the rifles are commonlly Class III NFA weapons, capable of full-auto firing, or at least 3 round burst firing. Some police departments also have access to Class III weapons of various types. As to pistols, the standard US military issue is the Beretta M 9, which has a magazine holding 15 rounds of 9 mm ammunition. So now we have an proven, existing standard of what constitutes a reasonable defensive weapon.
Fellas, Canadian law restricts magazines above 10 rounds, so that was what I had in mind. Yes, it’s arbitrary.
Finally, look at federal and state restrictions currently in force on full automatic weapons. Clearly, the Second Amendment isn’t currently interpreted by US lawmakers as a blanket right to own just anything that shoots.
Again, goodnight
Note -- I put the foregoing up strictly as an argument regarding defensive weaponry. Self-defense, or even worse, hunting, was NOT the purpose of including the second amendment in the US constitution. It does cover those things, but that’s not it’s raison d’etre.
@ Moe Katz:
You are the only one talking about “a blanket right to own just anything that shoots.” Anything the police are allowed to carry should also be allowed to be carried by the general public.
I want a tank, too.
Bunk X wrote:
You couldn’t afford the gas, believe me.
Mike C. wrote:
capacity is relative to some reasonable expectation of need…there is no standard…if you want to carry in a mall while shopping an extra mag seems reasonable but if you want to haul 200 rounds around that’s okay too…there is no solution that makes perfect sense for everybody…since there is a clear distinction between good guys and bad guys, the issue is pretty much moot
@ Moe Katz:
I’d get a hybrid.
Moe Katz wrote:
I assume you are not aware that US law (federal law at least) allows ownership of crew-served, belt-fed weapons like the Browning M-2 machine gun (in .50 caliber, no less) and at least some small artillery like anti-tank guns. The instances of such things being used in crimes over decades is almost zero.
I assume you are also not aware of the fact that the most deadly ammunition in the US (according to official FBI crime statistics, which are published annually) is the lowly .22 LR and the .25, usually fired from extremely cheap blowback-design pocket pistols with a 6 round capacity. Rifles of any type cause far fewer criminal deaths each and every year than clubs (like baseball bats) or just hands and feet.
There should be laws about stealing tanks and building armored bulldozers to romp around town destroying stuff.
@ Bunk X:
let’s do a study!
@ heysoos:
I use 20 round magazines for my Mini-14. You can buy 30 round versions, and some fool company makes and sells a 250 round, dual drum magazine for it, but that’s not something I want hanging off my rifle -- weighs a ton and is going to make it very unbalanced. Also tends to jam, as you might suspect. If it doesn’t jam and you fire as fast as possible, there’s a very large probability you will damage or destroy the gun due to overheating. I use 20 round magazines rather than the available 30 round ones because I don’t want the extra weight, but that’s a personal decision. I own multiple magazines because I pay for range time by the hour and would rather spend more of it shooting than reloading magazines.
@ Mike C.:
well, you’re the expert and that’s why I think you can decide for yourself what’s best for you in a given situation…this capacity argument is a dead end and best left up to the carriers themselves…999 out of a thousand people will do the right and practical thing…that’s your business, not mine…I have no desire to restrict already responsible people…but to leap ahead politically, mag capacity is gonna be a hot issue, regardless of the logic
@ Moe Katz:
Uh, we’re not Canadian.
Yes, by federal law and most state laws, ownership is allowed. What’s your point?
@ heysoos:
GRANT MONEY! We can prevent these atrocities from ever happening again? Get that bitch Fineswine on the phone!
@ heysoos:
I’m no expert. And I don’t think magazine capacity restrictions are going anywhere, or at least not on the federal level. MAYBE 1 or 2 states that currently do not have capacity limits on removeable magazines might institute limits, but that is yet to be seen. I own 2 rifles and 3 handguns that have non-removeable magazines/cylinders that are limited by the design to a certain number of rounds.
Bunk X wrote:
call it the Bunk Study Of Private Ownership Of Armored Vehicles, the BSOPOOAV Group…fund for 5 years at $2m a year…that’s 5 for you and 5 for me, tweedle dum and tweedle dee
You can own a tank, BTW. You just can’t buy ammo for the main gun.
Mike C. wrote:
I just think the feds will show their gun ‘prowess’ by dicking around with capacity, caliber, load/velocity, lead, liability…all that peripheral stuff…that’s all they have and they will use it
Mike C. wrote:
1. I was asked what I had in mind as a definition of high cap, and so I told you I was using the Canadian law as a rule of thumb. As I said, it’s arbitrary.
2. Federal law in the US does not permit you to register new fully automatic weapons, only ones dating to 1986 or earlier.
3. My point, again, is that the Second Amendment does not, as currently interpreted, confer an unconditional right to own just anything at all that shoots. You may feel that you have such a right, but that’s not how it works at the federal or state levels presently.
By the way, the school guards may as well have fully automatic weapons, why bother with high capacity mags on semi-automatics?
@ Moe Katz:
yes, most advanced military weaponry is not allowed into the gen pop and anyone here is good with that…but if you need an M2 that bad you can get one, but then you would not be gen pop anymore…get your checkbook out
Moe Katz wrote:
good point and seems logical…like I said above, if I hire a guard and he want’s an Uzi, then he can have it…if he wants high cap pistol mags, he can have them…but rocket launchers to oppose kid killers have been proven ineffective, otherwise that’s fine too…I don’t give a damn how you do it or what weapons you need to protect the kids
@ heysoos:
Imagine buying it and being too broke to shoot it.
@ Moe Katz:
heh, you have kids?…how much are they worth?
@ Moe Katz:
Ah, so your argument is that my grandson’s Henry Youth Carbine, a lever-action, should be banned then, yes? It holds 12 rounds of .22 LR or 17 rounds of .22 L or 18 rounds of .22 Short. Obviously a dire threat to the nation’s security.
So you have no justification for a magazine capacity limit other than just pulling a number out of your ass, for all intents and purposes. Thank you.
As to your other 2 points, I already knew that, thank you very much. You are aware that DC banned handguns by law and got smacked down, as did Chicago (and got smacked down) and that the State of IL just got their pee-pees smacked over their absolute ban on CCW, yes? You seem to have a rather scary belief in the absolute authority of rulers. That’s about as anti-American an attitude as is humanly possible.
Here’s my grandson’s “assault rifle”…
http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-lever-youth.cfm
lobo91 wrote:
I caught a similar virus but they didn’t want money but my laptop was inabled completely. Did the same as you to get rid of it.
A very rare and refreshing example an actual TV reporter who understands the second amendment…
http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment
Hat tip -- rayra at GCP
@ Mike C.:
Oh, and “Moe Katz” might want to view that video to understand what the basic discussion really concerns. I doubt he’ll understand, but that’s not my fault.
@ Mike C.:
When Americans, theoretically educated in American history, fail to understand the implications of the Second Amendment, it is easy to excuse foreigners who are ignorant of US History when they, too, don’t understand this really simple amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, though they haven’t exactly invalidated any laws on it. They have deliberately left the scrutiny of the Amendment vauge because if they give it the pride of place that it Deserves, nearly all gun control laws would be invalidated. “Shall not be infringed” is the strongest language used in the Bill of Laws. That is considerably stronger than “Congress shall make no laws” which implies that the States might indeed could make laws. Shalll not be infringed, Moe. It is standard English. I imagine that it means the same thing in Canadian as it does in English, only with an occasional “U” thrown in…
@ Iron Fist:
If people from other countries do not understand the basic facts under discussion, then perhaps they would do well to spare us their uninformed opinions.
How’s that for a comment the goes directly to the thread topic as well as the most recent discussion?
well that was fun..pc crashed…and yes…I know the nick is mis-spelled..long story.
@ Mike C.:
Works for me! What is most galling about the current debate on gun control is that the homicide rate is down despite (or perhaps because) gun sales being way up. At best there is no causal relationship between the ready availability of firearms and homicide. Chicago is proof of that. Guns are heavily restricted, and they have a high homicide rate. Where I live guns are only as restricted as the Federal Government requires (and we require a permit to carry), and the homicide rate is low. This is more than anecdotal evidence. The cold, hard fact is that the gun controllers view homicide as a tool to achieve their political ends. I don’ tkno wthat to be the case with Moe Katz, but more generally that is simply the facts here in the United States. They were simply waiting for the oppertunity to further their political aims. In reality, rifles are almost never used in homicides (something like less than 4% of homicides are with any type of rifle< IIRC). They are going after them because they are a target of oppertunity. “Assault Weapons” are simply one step towards a total or near total prohibition on civillian firearm ownership. You and I know this, but it is possible that Moe does not. We should educate him.
@ storagemanger:
Welcome back!
California sends Islam to Disneyland..
@ Iron Fist:
thank you
storagemanger wrote:
There are days when the computer revolution is truly revolting.
More of Obama’s international gun running.
US considers granting missile ships to Turkey
Total rifle killings per year as per the official FBI statistics:
1995 – 637
1996 -- 561
1997 -- 638
1998 -- 548
1999 -- 400
2000 – 396
2001 – 386
2002 – 486
2003 – 392
2004 – 403
2005 -- 442
2006 – 438
2007 -- 453
2008 – 380
2009 – 351
2010 – 358
2011 -- 323
Note that the 4 lowest yearly totals are the most recent, long after the expiration of the AWB in 2004.
Why are we still here?…you mean the MAYANS were wrong?
@ storagemanger:
The MAYAN’S contract ran out and wasn’t renewed; so no more calenders.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Can’t depend on y2k or the Mayan’s….who you gonna trust?
So this idiot knows a thing abouts guns thorough family members who served, hmmm, how many top secret things have his family told him? Sounds like time for an investigation of exactly what his family told him and why, they may be traitors …………..
storagemanger wrote:
Um…God!
storagemanger wrote:
we can recover that for ya.
This item will make you the life of the party on New Year’s Eve. One small problem. I checked with Cabela’s and they’re totally sold out of 25mm.
@ Mike C.:
well, arent those very interesting numbers
@ huckfunn:
It’s been rechambered for .50 BMG, so no worries. At 1000#, it’s a bit overweight for a single-shot .50 BMG, IMHO.
@ Mike C.:
I see that there’s 1 bid so I’m guessin that would be you.
new thread yinz
@ coldwarrior:
IIRC, the rifle total for 2011 is < 3 % of the total total, and less than half the instances of people killed without any weapons being used, just hands and feet.
Which brings up an old joke… A woman anti-gun protestor confronts a customer coming out of a gun shop with a new rifle. She says to the customer "why did you buy that rifle? Are you compensating for a small penis?" The customer thinks for a moment and answers "Well, yes ma'am, I guess I am. If I could kill something at 500 yards with my penis, I wouldn't need a rifle."
huckfunn wrote:
I don’t think my Geo would pull that thing…
@ Mike C.:
ahhh!
@ Mike C.:
Moe, can you sit down? 8)
@ Moe Katz:
The vast majority of the killings took place in two classrooms. The 3 or 4 other adults he killed were in the hallway, not in the same room with the kids.
It takes less than 2 seconds to switch magazines on an AR-15. If you count your shots, you can change it before running out, so it will still fire.
It would have made absolutely no difference if he’d used 10 or 20 round magazines instead of 30 round ones.
@ Moe Katz:
Maybe in the collective where you live, but not in a free society.
@ lobo91:
Borg -- what can you do?
Mike C. wrote:
I always enjoy listening to non-US citizens lecturing us on what our Constitution does and doesn’t permit.
@ lobo91:
Ayup.
@ Mike C.:
It’s particularly interesting coming from Canadians, given that a large part of their population are descendants of those who fled this country following our revolution out of loyalty to the British monarch.
Looking at the absolute hell that democrats have made of DC, Chicago. LA, Detroit and other cities, I am motivated to oppose gun control and the rest of thier stupid ideas.
Denying our law abiding citizens thier Constitutional right to defend themselves will not save us from evil lunatics, it will empower criminals.
Maybe we should cut off everybodys penis to prevent rape?
Babies can be created with artificial insemination.
@ Prebanned:
Let’s ban matches and lighters to prevent arson.
Nobody needs those assault fire-starting devices. They used flints to start fires when the Constitution was written.
//
Prebanned wrote:
Here is a listing of the high/low crime cities based upon population. My guesstimation is that 80 to 90% of the highest crime cities are run by dimocrats. I was surprised to see that El Paso tops the list of the safest large cities.
@ huckfunn:
El Paso, although a Democrat-run city, has an extremely high law enforcement presence, since it’s a major border crossing.
Piersie baby, England called and they don’t want you back, they suggested you try the Falklands.
Mike C. wrote:
Look, I understand the limits of my position as a furriner, all I’ve been saying here is that your own Amurrican people have the right, through their duly elected representatives, to decide what instruments citizens may use to exercise their Second Amendment rights. A large proportion of your fellow citizens seem to feel this way, and this is reflected in legislation going back to the early 20th century, if not earlier. I’m not telling Americans what to ban or not ban, I’m saying the American people have the right to decide what weapons they will tolerate in their midst.
lobo91 wrote:
Do you drive according to speed limits? And what about your right to drive on whichever side of the road suits your fancy? And what about your right to experiment with botulism bacteria in your basement in the pursuit of scientific advancement? Can you do that in the US? We all give up some freedom to live in an organized society, my friend.
You guys have a heavily mythologized idea about American history and values and law, and your quarrel is not with this here furriner, but with an increasing majority of your fellow citizens who don’t share your idea of what your country is about.
Flame-proof suit on, going to the gym.
And Mike C.:
What proportion of your fellow citizens do you think share your view that the Second Amendment exists so citizens can overthrow the government if it gets uppity? Can you name one reputable historian who would say that?
@ Moe Katz:
the 2d amendment is to make sure the govt does not have a monopoly on violence..therefore a monopoly on coercive force.
jefferson was pretty clear about guns in the hands of citizens. we are not subjects.
huckfunn wrote:
note NYC is 3rd even with a population of around 8 million…
Moe Katz wrote:
coldwarrior wrote:
there is a big difference between overthrowing a government and just keeping it honest.
I don’t know any reputable academic historian who would say the second amendment is about citizen vs. government. They’d hunt you down like rats.
brookly red wrote:
NYC is very safe nowadays, with a very multicultural, tolerant culture on the whole. Interesting, though, that the two incidents of people being pushed on subway tracks recently involved a minority perp and a recent immigrant victim of a different minority. Food for thought.
@ lobo91:
By the way, I’m glad to hear you’re working, Lobo, and still in a position to spoil your little companion.
@ 211 Moe Katz: probably VDH and Gingrich and wife.
I went to a disaster emergency class and they included everything possible to survive for 7 days where goods stop flowing. Except for a gun. Snow flakes would rather melt than freeze the hell out an evil patootie.
@ 210 Moe Katz: The Second Amendment is a little more fundamental than the exceptions you provide. non sequitur. When muslims accept churches and convesions in Mecca and criminals no longer carry guns and no single goverment official is corrupt then maybe we don’t need the second amendment anymore. It is there as a far sighted piece of wisdom based on experience with human nature.
I would be fine if we tired a national voting id with a persons mental health. Then denied certain class of mentally ill the ability to use the id to buy a gun.
darkwords wrote:
People can always get guns at gun shows or through straw buyers, like the guy in upstate NY who shot the firemen. Also, mass shooters don’t necessarily have psych histories, many are just angry, disgruntled suicidal men that want to make a grandstand exit.
Again, I’m questioning whether the Second Amendment really says or implies anything about whether lawmakers can restrict specific *types* of weapons and/or ordnance, as opposed to firearms per se.
@ darkwords:
I’d be interested in seeing anything by Hanson or Gingrich on the subject, noting however that Hanson’s competence as a historian is on ancient Greek warfare.
Mike C. wrote:
Putting my user ID inside quotes? You seem to have gotten completely tilted about this, and I suppose I should have realized some of you feel that strongly about the subject. Oh, well….
Moe Katz wrote:
I’ve thought about that. Maybe Piers Morgan should advocate for more subway control. Make subway trains softer so people wouldn’t be crushed when they are pushed in front of them by deranged persons. Make it illegal for deranged persons to be on the premises of a subway. Build fences on the subway platforms with signage that specifically prohibits deranged persons. So much to do.
huckfunn wrote:
Damn, for a minute there I thought you were actually going to comment on the topic I’d raised. Y’all are hopeless on this subject and i give up.
@ huckfunn:
What you are not reckoning with, Huck, is that 20 kids being slaughtered causes a gut reaction nationwide that can’t be soothed with trivializing statistics showing how rare this sort of thing really is -- and arguing that it’s within the limits of acceptable risk as you do will sound really callous and make the pro-gun community look really nasty.
Moe Katz wrote:
Moe: I commented on your topic of the subway atrocities and you have no reply. I live west of Austin Texas. We’ve had no subway atrocities here. My community is tolerant, polite and well-armed. We are not particularly “multi-cultural”, although we do have blacks and Mexicans in the community. Everyone seems to get along just fine. There is almost not crime here.
New thread -- Take A Shot
@ huckfunn:
Huck, there are now barriers in a number of cities worldwide that prevent people from being pushed on the track—e.g. London and Madrid, IIRC. NY cannot easily do it because the rolling stock is of mixed origin and so the spacing of the doors on the coaches varies. It’s certainly not an intrinsically silly idea to add protection of that kind to a subway system.
What interested me about the two subway crimes was the inter-ethnic dimensions; the old minority perps (AA and Hispanic) versus the immigrant perps (East Asian and South Asian, respectively). Yes, that’s off topic.
@ Moe Katz:
I mean, of couse, old minority perps versus immigrant VICTIMS.
Moe Katz wrote:
I have reckoned with it, Moe. The “nationwide gut reaction” has been whipped up by the leftists, statists and the press. Tragic things happen to thousands of school children everyday. Some are caused by traffic accidents, fires, disease, abuse, neglect, weather and some are caused by firearms. Why do you refuse to address only the firearms and not the others which kill far more school children than firearms? Listen to yourself. I am not the one that sounds callous and nasty.
huckfunn wrote:
That sounds to me like shooting the messenger, and I don’t see how the media could have reported it any differently. The coverage I saw seemed neutral enough.huckfunn wrote:
Huck, the other bad things that happen to kids are not at issue here. This is about a horrendous incident that cannot be trivialized.
@ Moe Katz:
Moe: My turn to give up. Cowboys are on and hopefully they won’t give up.
Have a Happy New Year.
huckfunn wrote:
Gotta go soon anyway to pick up my wife at the train station.
Happy New Year to you and yours!
@ Iron Fist:
Is piling on still worth 15 yards in the NFL?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A milita is a fighting unit comprised of civilians, well regulated means well armed, shall not be infringed means not limited even a little around the edges.
The People of the United States can change this only by changing the Constitution.
From Wikipedia, no kidding.
It is your duty as an American to keep and bear arms sufficient to provide for the common defense.
Prebanned wrote:
Oops! Moe is a subject of Kanukistan.
@ Prebanned:
Moe, bearing arms and not having that right infringed upon is imprinted in our American soul (and I am not a gun owner). The current gun debate about the slaughter of the Sandy Hook kids is just a red herring, trying to incrementally take those rights away.
I’m sorry, I disagree with you.
Calo wrote:
Let’s correct that deficiency at the NRA convention in May.
@ huckfunn:
I already set Lobo up to teach me -- just don’t tell him that is what I am up to.
And yes, next week I will do research in Cowtown.
@ Moe Katz:
Not in Colorado, they can’t. Every gun sold at a gun show here requires a background check, just like in a store.
The problem is that the background check system is flawed. Too much pertinent information isn’t in the system.
Calo wrote:
Did you see my comment the other night about the difference between Texas and Colorado with regard to training?
I can teach you to shoot, but if you want a Texas concealed carry permit, you’ll have to take a class from a state-authorized instructor there.
@ lobo91:
Crap!
Foiled again!
Calo wrote:
Texas is one of the states where they have a specified program of instruction, and they decide who gets to teach it. NM is another one.
@ lobo91:
No Lobo, I was teasing you thinking you were not around.
Honestly, it would be difficult for me to learn from you.
I’m a proud woman and would hate to make a mistake in front of you.
Calo wrote:
He’d bark at you like the crusty old NCO he is. And I don’t mean that in a bad way.
huckfunn wrote:
I would not…
@ huckfunn:
My dog is bigger than his dog.
huckfunn wrote:
I keep hearing that word “subject” around here, and I find it very revealing. You have hangups about the monarchy due to the completely distorted and mythologized version of history you get taught. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and Her Majesty can no more infringe on my personal liberty than Obama can deprive you of yours. Such a bunch of malarkey you Americons believe in.
@ Moe Katz:
I think most people understand that, although it’s not really the point.
While the queen has no real power over you, your parliament does. You have whatever rights they decide you get. That’s why you have crap like “human rights commissions” that get to decide what you can and can’t say.
We’d lynch people like that.
@ Moe Katz:
Biding my time, waiting to see if anyone notices Moe’s response and his typo.
@ lobo91:
We do have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution in Canada, but in general we are a bit less libertarian than our neighbors to the south. That’s our choice, though. We prefer to have laws about hate speech and stuff like that. On the other hand, this country ranks higher on the economic freedom index and we have much lower corporate taxes.
Calo wrote:
What typo? That’s a neologism, and I hope to become famous if no one else has thought of it.
Don’t really know whether I’d choose the Royals or the Obamas, though. Trailer trash, pick your color…
Moe Katz wrote:
I know as much, or more about the topic of subject v citizen as you do, so don’t presume to talk down to me. My father was a British subject, living in California in 1943, when he was called up under the U.S. draft. He wanted to be a flier, but at the time aliens were prohibited from serving in the U.S. Army Air Corps. He went to Canada, joined the RCAF, went through basic and was transferred to England where he served out the rest of his enlistment in the RAF. The only thing he ever flew was a truck. At any rate, your provincial prejudices are showing when you assume that some of us don’t understand. I have relatives (only 1 generation removed), who were subjects of the Empire. They were born, served, died and are buried in Tasmania, England, India and Canada.
@ huckfunn:
Huck, I’ve had the word “subject” thrown at me about three times in this thread, and it seems each time that the implication is that I’m less free than an American would be and don’t appreciate American liberty, etc.
@ Moe Katz:
Alas, “Americons” is not original.
Moe Katz wrote:
There you have it. You are less free. The UK and Commonwealth SUBJECTS are not governed by a Constitution as are Americans. You are governed by British Common Law which is constantly being modified by Parliament and adjudicated by courts beyond your electoral recourse. Sadly, the U.S. is going down the primrose path of the latter. At any rate, you have no Bill of Rights.
Moe Katz wrote:
Meh, it was sarcasm.
You don’t make typos.
@ huckfunn:
Actually, we have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982.
Also, with respect to Lobo’s point, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which restricted certain kinds of speech, was repealed by parliament.
In general, I concur with your prediction that the US will drift a bit more toward the collectivism of Canada and Europe.
@ Calo:
Ouch!
Moe Katz wrote:
But no Right to Bear Arms which is a fundamental right under the U.S. 2nd Amendment. Therefore, the unarmed citizens-subjects (whatever) of the Commonwealth nations will always be subjects of the armed government.
@ huckfunn:
So we’re back to the idea of guns being there to protect the citizenry from the government. I believe the Second Amendment was aimed at preventing the British from coming back, and that the idea of citizens taking up arms against the new US government was the farthest thing from their minds. I’m open to having my opinion changed by real evidence, however.
Orthodox Jewish women have no right to bare arms, by the way.
Moe Katz wrote:
As to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, here are some writings and quotations from some of the original framers of the Constitution and their contemporaries. Check it out.
@ huckfunn:
Thanks so much. Lemme mull that over and I promise to get back to you on it, I really am open-minded on this.
Moe Katz wrote:
You’re a good man and I appreciate the earnest and decent debate.
G’nite.
Moe Katz wrote:
From @ 236 Prebanned:
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The Second Amemdment protects citizens from the Government, it is not a myth and whoever told you that lied to you.
What other lies have they told you?
People can still argue if the Founders were wrong about the Second Amendment but if They want to infringe upon our rights to keep and bear arms, They will have to amend the Constitution.
Moe Katz wrote:
LOL!
But they can BEAR them. AFAIK they serve in the IDF.
@ huckfunn:
We don’t want to bash Canadians or other British subjects! We have Canadian and Australian contributors on 1389 Blog and they provide a valuable perspective on the news that we wouldn’t get any other way.
If you want some real conservative news, go on YouTube and watch the Sun News shows from Canada. They cover US issues too.
1389AD wrote:
I didn’t bash anyone so save your scolding for someone else. Moe and I had a decent and polite debate.