Elrostar Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 But it's something about having that thirty round magazine that makes it look so cool, you know? Plus, it gives you that competitive edge against a deer for hunting. Most deer expect guys to need to reload after five or ten rounds, but if you've got an AR-15 with a thirty-round clip, that deer will never know what hit it! Sucker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudFlare Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Well, honestly, first they'd feel the full wrath of a polite conversation, then a letter, then probably I'd file a lawsuit and pursue that as far as it will go. If I still feel unfairly muzzled, I'd consider alternate venues for my speech, and even if those turn up dry I'd really have to think long and hard before murdering someone with a gun.I prefer not to be beaten(physically). If a group of military cadets was assaulting me, I would seriously consider using deadly force to defend myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagathai Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I prefer vanilla to chocolate, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 You're coming from outside the gun culture, Neil, and I think maybe you lack the perspective to judge these folks accurately. From my point of view, I see these people (less the ones doing it for the sake of a cheap radio stunt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/r..._n_262559.html) not trying to intimidate, but rather making a statement of defiance -- essentially, it's a statement of molon labes with pertinent props. In other words, it's not so much a "shut up or I'll kill you" as much as it is a "don't tread on me".It's true that I know little or nothing of gun culture, but I know that the Obama administration has done nothing or next to nothing to indicate an intention to strip people of their firearms. (As I have said previously, the NRA has essentially won the fight, as evidenced by the fact that we can't get even the most sensible gun control legislation passed no matter how many school shootings we endure.) Given that, what has gotten these people so upset that they feel the need to display weapons, particularly at rallies that don't involve proposed gun restrictions? If it's fear of the federal government in general, then I sure wish these folks had been so outraged and visible when Congress and George Bush signed away half of our constitutional rights with the PATRIOT Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagathai Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Given that, what has gotten these people so upset that they feel the need to display weapons, particularly at rallies that don't involve proposed gun restrictions? If it's fear of the federal government in general, then I sure wish these folks had been so outraged and visible when Congress and George Bush signed away half of our constitutional rights with the PATRIOT Act.You and me both, pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 You're coming from outside the gun culture, Neil, and I think maybe you lack the perspective to judge these folks accurately. From my point of view, I see these people (less the ones doing it for the sake of a cheap radio stunt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/r..._n_262559.html) not trying to intimidate, but rather making a statement of defiance -- essentially, it's a statement of molon labes with pertinent props. In other words, it's not so much a "shut up or I'll kill you" as much as it is a "don't tread on me".I think both perspectives are valid. He may be saying "don't tread on me" but that does not preclude his actions from intimidating others, particularly people who disagree with him. Moreover, how are people to judge whether it's "don't tread on me" or "shut up or I'll kill you"? We have enough suicidal shooting sprees in this country, plus assassinations and assassination attempts on Presidents, that it isn't unreasonable to be concerned about that. I find it hard to believe that he could be unaware of these things and so assuming you are correct, I think he simply found it acceptable to be misconstrued. I confess that I don't really get the point, since those most likely to misunderstand are the ones he was most likely trying to make the statement to. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 It's wierd to see Yagathai taking my usual part in this debate. Have you joined the dark side Yags?While I wholeheartedly agree with pretty much unrestricted access to firearms (no need to rehash), and with these guys' right to carry, particularly at political protests, I think they are doing their cause more harm than good.The guy with the AR particularly is going to do some harm. Most folks probably didn't even know it was legal to carry a loaded rifle around town, and don't think about it. By doing so, and in such an emotionally charged political climate, I think that these fellows are going to turn more people against gun-rights than toward them. More people are going to say "there should be a law against that", than will say that such things should be encouraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ztemhead Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Torm, I have a question for you, feel free to not answer. Would you give up all your guns, and swear on the holiest of holy's to never own one again in return for guaranteed free healthcare for your family for the rest of your lives? I mean this as a conversation starter bit of curiosity here, not meant to be indicative of any Larger Truth about Libertarians, Arizonans, or gun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagathai Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 The dark side? Man, you clearly haven't been around long enough. People are always getting confused when I'm both pro-choice and pro-gun, for example, but it's not my fault I don't toe any particular party line. For reference, I am an unrepentant laissez-faire capitalist pro-gun libertarian, though unlike most libertarians I don't believe in leprechauns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 By carrying their guns openly at a political event, their using the threat of violence to intimidate people exercising their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly. If it's okay to openly carry outside a town hall meeting or rally, when is it not okay? 100 feet outside polling place holding a "Vote Republican" sign? What about outside a minority voter registration drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagathai Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Torm, I have a question for you, feel free to not answer. Would you give up all your guns, and swear on the holiest of holy's to never own one again in return for guaranteed free healthcare for your family for the rest of your lives? I mean this as a conversation starter bit of curiosity here, not meant to be indicative of any Larger Truth about Libertarians, Arizonans, or gun owners.What kind of ridonkulous question is that? Would you, Ztem, consent to be raped by a unicorn, for a week, in exchange for a lifetime supply of the pudding of your choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Would you give up all your guns, and swear on the holiest of holy's to never own one again in return for guaranteed free healthcare for your family for the rest of your lives?This question feels leading, I would need more information.At whose expense am I getting this healthcare? Is this a private arrangement between you and I or is the cost of my healthcare being coerced out of others? Am I voluntarily giving up guns just for me or giving up support for gun rights in general?For just myself, if someone wanted to bribe me into not owning guns by paying for my health care forever, I reckon I could go for that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKassi Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Carrying a rifle around town shouldn't raise eyebrows. Brandishing a weapon at gatherings with the specific intent of spooking people should. I guess there is a difference between the militia culture and the 'gun culture' or whatever. The first regards firearms as tools we keep and maintain in order to defend ourselves if necessary. The second thinks they are neat toys that sound way cooler then battery operated laser guns. The Bill of Rights is subject to interpretation, legislation, and even amendment. The resurrection of the Brady Bill always hovers on the horizon. Childish stunts like these bring it's rebirth one step closer, and if it comes again people like this are going to cry the loudest, while the rest of us quietly curse their names as the cost of civilian arms and ammunition continues to skyrocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 So it is officially on between Hutchison and Perry. Hutchison has said she will resign this fall to focus on the race. Evidently there will be a special election "perhaps coming as early as May", to fill her seat. http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/hutchison...2009-08-17.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Maybe the gun nuts at these town halls felt threatened by the other right wing nuts around them. I can understand the impulse to carry a firearm to protect yourself then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 TheKassi,The Bill of Rights is subject to interpretation, legislation, and even amendment.No, the Bill of Rights is not subject to "legislation" it stands as it is subject to interpretation and amendment. Being part of the Constitution means it stands above simply legislation unless it is amended to make it subject to legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 What kind of ridonkulous question is that? Would you, Ztem, consent to be raped by a unicorn, for a week, in exchange for a lifetime supply of the pudding of your choice?How big is the unicorn and what flavor is the pudding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagathai Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 How big is the unicorn and what flavor is the pudding?He's "quite a stallion", and as was stated, the pudding is the flavor of your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudFlare Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Mmm... non-consensual unicorn pudding sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Mmm... non-consensual unicorn pudding sex.I'm going to decline. If we were talking chocolate-covered Nutter Butters however...well, you do not want to know how far I'd go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.