But Tam, you really don't think that the White House and the Congress should only be protected by Revolvers and Pump Shotguns, do you? Why, just think of how many Congress Critters would run to the hills if they didn't have their Tax-Payer Funded SWAT Teams on call 24/7 to protect them at work!
"But, Tam, those are police. We have ALWAYS said that we would all be safer if ONLY police and military had guns."
I don't think you're gonna get through to a rabid anti-gunner. It will take something pretty dramatic to shake someone like that loose. I should know: I WAS one of them for many years. 9/11 was the "Black Swan" event that made me re-think everything I thought I knew, including everything I thought I knew about guns. Logic doesn't work; something has to shake their fundamental assumptions and then they have to WANT to question their fundamental worldview.
States with open carry laws have far less firearms violence than those with very restrictive laws such as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut or California.
Why?
Criminals are intimidated by victims who shoot back.
Additionally, anyone in America who is intimidated by the vast problem with firearms violence should immediately flee to Mexico where firearms are illegal. You'll be SAFE there.
Les, those kids were killed for their own good...and to protect them.
Those Evil Black Rifles are only good for "indiscriminately killing huge numbers of innocent people." Which is why only the police should have them. They're not intended for us serfs. I know because some politi-critter said it.
When the govt kills people it's because they needed killin. Even if it numbers in the millions.
Politicians insist that any civilian is a potential criminal - but most politicians already have criminal records and should be deemed clinically insane.
So we'd all be safer if we all had Winchester 1907s, with their removable box magazine and more powerful round, I assume?
Because "not designed for..."
It was "designed for civilian use", but also used by France in the Great War... I guess that makes it a Sneaky Backdoor Retro-designed-for-war gun that must be banned?
(History is the best argument against this sort of thing; the semi-automatic box-magazine rifle is neither novel nor of especial military utility [compared to machine-guns].
The Founders never imagined individuals could have such firepower?
Nonsense - it was and IS perfectly legal to own a damned cannon.)
Now, this makes sense. You don't yell at a two year old (or 13 year old) throwing a tantrum -- you calmly speak in a softer voice, so they have to quiet down, to hear you. That is, the adult sets the direct for the interaction.
Mount up the SWAT team and you challenge the bad guys to stand up to those nasty dudes -- with bigger ATF-supplied weapons, with more rounds, with more trigger pullers. With communications gear, with planning, with mind tricks.
Sigvald, wouldn't "Weapons of War that don't belong on the Street" run all the way from fer instance a Sharps carbine to an M-4? From say an 1851 Navy Colt to an M-9? (Yes, that includes your lever-action thutty-thutty.)
Seems if a weapon design predates percussion caps it oughta be all right for us plebes to own, according to this particular variation of gun grabbers.
Baited someone who used the "WMD's" line on twitter today. Conversation went like this: Them: "Semi-automated [sic] rifle used 2 kill kids in Newtown is weapon of mass destruction"
Me: "Just a question: Do you believe WMD's were found in Iraq?
Them: "Nope, that was the GOP lie that was force-fed to Americans which led 2 lots of senseless deaths"
Me: "You took that bait way too easily. #workseverytime"
If they are weapons of war then employing them is an act of war. Is it not a capital war crime to commit acts of war against civilian populations?
ReplyDeleteBut Tam, you really don't think that the White House and the Congress should only be protected by Revolvers and Pump Shotguns, do you? Why, just think of how many Congress Critters would run to the hills if they didn't have their Tax-Payer Funded SWAT Teams on call 24/7 to protect them at work!
ReplyDelete"But, Tam, those are police. We have ALWAYS said that we would all be safer if ONLY police and military had guns."
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're gonna get through to a rabid anti-gunner. It will take something pretty dramatic to shake someone like that loose. I should know: I WAS one of them for many years. 9/11 was the "Black Swan" event that made me re-think everything I thought I knew, including everything I thought I knew about guns. Logic doesn't work; something has to shake their fundamental assumptions and then they have to WANT to question their fundamental worldview.
Good luck with that -- it happens only rarely.
An armed society is a polite society.
ReplyDeleteStates with open carry laws have far less firearms violence than those with very restrictive laws such as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut or California.
Why?
Criminals are intimidated by victims who shoot back.
Additionally, anyone in America who is intimidated by the vast problem with firearms violence should immediately flee to Mexico where firearms are illegal. You'll be SAFE there.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of "Weapons of War that don't belong on the Street," just how many kids died at Waco?
ReplyDeleteLes, those kids were killed for their own good...and to protect them.
ReplyDeleteThose Evil Black Rifles are only good for "indiscriminately killing huge numbers of innocent people."
Which is why only the police should have them. They're not intended for us serfs.
I know because some politi-critter said it.
When the govt kills people it's because they needed killin. Even if it numbers in the millions.
Who said it first??? Bam or Chuck the Schmuck... Both like to dance in the blood.
ReplyDeletePoliticians insist that any civilian is a potential criminal - but most politicians already have criminal records and should be deemed clinically insane.
ReplyDeleteSo we'd all be safer if we all had Winchester 1907s, with their removable box magazine and more powerful round, I assume?
ReplyDeleteBecause "not designed for..."
It was "designed for civilian use", but also used by France in the Great War... I guess that makes it a Sneaky Backdoor Retro-designed-for-war gun that must be banned?
(History is the best argument against this sort of thing; the semi-automatic box-magazine rifle is neither novel nor of especial military utility [compared to machine-guns].
The Founders never imagined individuals could have such firepower?
Nonsense - it was and IS perfectly legal to own a damned cannon.)
Now, this makes sense. You don't yell at a two year old (or 13 year old) throwing a tantrum -- you calmly speak in a softer voice, so they have to quiet down, to hear you. That is, the adult sets the direct for the interaction.
ReplyDeleteMount up the SWAT team and you challenge the bad guys to stand up to those nasty dudes -- with bigger ATF-supplied weapons, with more rounds, with more trigger pullers. With communications gear, with planning, with mind tricks.
Good point, Tam.
Double standard>standards.
ReplyDeleteLove it.
Another version:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bussjaeger.org/secret-service-first.jpg
Sigvald, wouldn't "Weapons of War that don't belong on the Street" run all the way from fer instance a Sharps carbine to an M-4? From say an 1851 Navy Colt to an M-9? (Yes, that includes your lever-action thutty-thutty.)
ReplyDeleteSeems if a weapon design predates percussion caps it oughta be all right for us plebes to own, according to this particular variation of gun grabbers.
Are those tactical assault sneakers?
ReplyDeleteDouble standard in 3...2... Sigh
ReplyDeleteBaited someone who used the "WMD's" line on twitter today. Conversation went like this:
ReplyDeleteThem: "Semi-automated [sic] rifle used 2 kill kids in Newtown is weapon of mass destruction"
Me: "Just a question: Do you believe WMD's were found in Iraq?
Them: "Nope, that was the GOP lie that was force-fed to Americans which led 2 lots of senseless deaths"
Me: "You took that bait way too easily. #workseverytime"