GasBandit
Staff member
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Because what more bad can the media dig up on him? I feel like a lot of the candidates are put in because all their laundry is already out where everybody saw it, and people like Hermain Cain, Marco Rubio, Chris Christy et al have everything to lose.
You know what I'd really like to see? Ted Cruz as the nominee. That would be a fun series of debates. The left would lose their mind as their boogeyman incarnate appeared before them.[DOUBLEPOST=1399396980,1399396939][/DOUBLEPOST]
He's slightly out of favor at the moment because he got chummy with Obama for hurricane aid. But in a year, that will seem trifling. Especially if the alternative is President Hillary Rodham.
Last edited:
Necronic
Staff member
You know what the greatest threat to open carry laws is? Open carry activists.
http://www.foodbeast.com/2014/05/05/so-a-dozen-armed-gentlemen-walk-into-a-jack-in-the-box/
I mean good lord guys. The thing I hate the most about these stories is how surprised the open carry guys are that people are getting scared. I should just hang out around their children with an assault rifle and see how they like it.
http://www.foodbeast.com/2014/05/05/so-a-dozen-armed-gentlemen-walk-into-a-jack-in-the-box/
I mean good lord guys. The thing I hate the most about these stories is how surprised the open carry guys are that people are getting scared. I should just hang out around their children with an assault rifle and see how they like it.
Why, oh why, did I read the comments?
They also wanted you to own black people because they weren't as much "people" as the perfect white folks were. So you know, take the whole "founders and their infinite wisdom can never be even a tiny bit wrong" with a a bit of salt you know.
GasBandit
Staff member
I read the comments. It was funny.
"Jack in the Box is private property. You think you have the right to open carry on MY property?"
"The same way I think blacks have the right to eat there same as whites, yes."
Frankly, I'd like to see a lot MORE open carry demonstration. I'm not satisfied until I see every goddamned person on the street with a Bushmaster slung across their back.[DOUBLEPOST=1399399505,1399399416][/DOUBLEPOST]
I can respect that you hold that position, even if I disagree with it and think your use of it is intellectually dishonest. However, my issue was that Hillary invoked the sancrosanctness of the founders in the same breath she de facto advocated ignoring the 2nd amendment.
Incorrect. At least half the delegates in the Continental Congress were ether staunch abolitionists (like Franklin and Adams) or at least were alright with the idea of outlawing slavery on moral grounds. The other half (the SOUTHERN half) was not. The original draft had language that would outlaw slavery, but this was stricken out to appease the southern states and to get them on board.
GasBandit
Staff member
And that they made a system for changing the document through amendments and repealing amendments, which is in effect to this day. People forget that. Politicians (conveniently) forget that.
Well, I can't speak to her argument because I haven't read it and I don't care about Hillary.
I respect wanting to hold as close to the founders original intent as possible but I don't think thats what the majority of the far-right gun rights folks are doing, I don't even think they know what that means. Just because a law was written down it doesn't make it automatically relevant to us today. It also doesn't mean it isn't. Now, and this is key: There may be a concept in that law that is relevant (and thats up for debate as I'm sure you are familiar with the different schools of interpreting those texts) such as what do we allow as a country for defense both of our homes and in order to stave off a tyrannical government? Thats something we as a country do need to decide and talk about and it is terribly relevant. But I just can't take any argument seriously that says, "Here's a few words and we will take them 100% literally, cultural context and history be damned". That's not trying to understand the founders intent, it's just cherry picking which parts of that world and those documents we want to ignore and which parts we want to enforce. I think it's dangerous and horribly ignorant.[DOUBLEPOST=1399400824,1399400556][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think everyone knows there was disagreement over slavery (and I would imagine many other issues). I was making a generalization about law. If I remember correctly these guys spent a LOT of time arguing. The point is, they didn't outlaw it and it stood for a long time as the law of the land. That doesn't mean it was good just because it was a law.
So take my "they" as a general "they who wrote the law still allowed it even if they disagreed with it" if it makes you feel better. I mean, I doubt the slaves were like, "Oh sweet, some of those guys don't like these laws, that makes me feel a lot better." but whatev.
[DOUBLEPOST=1399401235][/DOUBLEPOST]I will add this: I am not in favor of "banning" all guns. Not even so called "assault weapons". I just think the discussion about what we as a society are ok with needs to be a lot smarter and a lot more nuanced than it currently is.
Necronic
Staff member
True. I think its time to modify the 2nd amendment. I'm not sure exactly how you would modify it, but it needs work. I DO think that people deserve the right to bear arms. But there's something wrong with the law if people are allowed to bear them so irresponsibly that it consistently makes others afraid for their lives.
Its insane to think that there is nothing wrong with the second amendment as it is currently being handled.
GasBandit
Staff member
Seeing as how 90% of that "handling" is flat out unconstitutional circumnavigation, I'd have to agree with that point. I think the main problem here is one of education on both sides of the argument. A lot of the gun enthusiasts don't have proper respect for what their weapon is, and those who are frightened by guns could use a little time on the range, honestly.
Necronic
Staff member
I have spent quite a fair amount of time on the range, and I can comfortably say that when you see someone walking into a Jack in the Box with an AR15 the proper response is fear.
Also, what are you referring to as the "Handling" that is unconstitutional circumnavigation? The open carry stuff?
ed: And fwiw, gun ranges are filled with unsafe morons. Rangemasters are usually really good at catching these morons, but I regularly see people flag or approach the firing line during a cease fire. Since there is ZERO education required, lots of people get their first education on (un)safe gun handling while holding a loaded gun. Which is ridiculous.
I was lucky enough to have the boy scouts introduce me. I made the mistake of almost flagging a rangemaster in the FACE with a loaded 410. He was expecting this sort of stuff since we were all new and didn't know much better, so he quickly slapped the barrel away and then proceded to yell at me for a good 2 minutes.
Also, what are you referring to as the "Handling" that is unconstitutional circumnavigation? The open carry stuff?
ed: And fwiw, gun ranges are filled with unsafe morons. Rangemasters are usually really good at catching these morons, but I regularly see people flag or approach the firing line during a cease fire. Since there is ZERO education required, lots of people get their first education on (un)safe gun handling while holding a loaded gun. Which is ridiculous.
I was lucky enough to have the boy scouts introduce me. I made the mistake of almost flagging a rangemaster in the FACE with a loaded 410. He was expecting this sort of stuff since we were all new and didn't know much better, so he quickly slapped the barrel away and then proceded to yell at me for a good 2 minutes.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
I had a similar experience, though I never quite got a gun in a rangemaster's face. The summer camp I attended from ages 5-7 had Canoeing, horseback riding, swimming, archery, and rifle marksmanship with .22 caliber rifles.
The way I see it, if everyone had the proper level of education on the subject, firearms would be seen for the tools they are, and would generate no more fear than if a man walked into that Jack in the Box with a screwdriver.
The way I see it, if everyone had the proper level of education on the subject, firearms would be seen for the tools they are, and would generate no more fear than if a man walked into that Jack in the Box with a screwdriver.
Necronic
Staff member
If people were properly educated on firearms they would not walk into a Jack in the Box open carrying them. That was a ridiculous stunt meant to make a point, and failing terribly at it. I do agree that people would have better attitudes if more people were better educated. Almost every time I read a story about someone accidentally shooting a child or whatnot it is because they are doing something that violates even the most basic rules of gun safety, like the idiot who was showing is nephew how the laser sight on his rifle worked by aiming it at his head. Guess how that turned out?
I really do think there needs to be a licensing system. Let some 3rd party like the NRA set it up if you're afraid of government using it as a tool of tyranny.
edit: I mean....this is our gun culture
People think its funny that they were giving her an oversized gun, which is incredibly dangerous. I do not trust these people to be around me with a gun.
I really do think there needs to be a licensing system. Let some 3rd party like the NRA set it up if you're afraid of government using it as a tool of tyranny.
edit: I mean....this is our gun culture
People think its funny that they were giving her an oversized gun, which is incredibly dangerous. I do not trust these people to be around me with a gun.
These were the kinds of kids I grew up with in Texas. The kind that didn't bother to tell me that the back storage area of the Land Rover we took a road trip in had several illegal guns in it. Because they needed them. For… you know… nothing. Well, maybe for shooting at all the black people they presumed were out to get them. Because they were also horrible racists.
Necronic
Staff member
And I'll chose to follow Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity."
I am far more concerned by the potential threats of stupid people with guns than I am of the potential malice of people regulating them. Because I've seen a LOT of one, and none of the other.
Sure, the government could become corrupt and take your guns. They could also take your money. Or they could take your land. Or they could take your health. And those things are reasonable fears. The unreasonable thing is thinking that an unregulated gun market protects you from them.
Africa has a really unregulated gun market. Hasn't done them much good.
"Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity."
I am far more concerned by the potential threats of stupid people with guns than I am of the potential malice of people regulating them. Because I've seen a LOT of one, and none of the other.
Sure, the government could become corrupt and take your guns. They could also take your money. Or they could take your land. Or they could take your health. And those things are reasonable fears. The unreasonable thing is thinking that an unregulated gun market protects you from them.
Africa has a really unregulated gun market. Hasn't done them much good.
Hey, look, another gun owner who just wants to be free to love his guns: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...le-demonstrating-laser-sight-on-his-forehead/
These goddamn stories... they make me both incredibly sad and incredibly angry.
I mean, rule #1 of gun safety is -always- treat it like it's loaded. And rules 2-5 say to refer back to rule 1.
GasBandit
Staff member
Putting aside the broad brush vagueness of the statement, the areas of africa you're talking about have anarchy, which makes the comparison a little labored. Plus, would these areas of africa be better off if ONLY the warlords had guns, and the populace didn't? Because that's the alternative. There's no magic wand to wave to "make guns go away," either there, or here.[DOUBLEPOST=1399411424,1399411374][/DOUBLEPOST]
A tragic instance of applied idiocy, to be sure. And as I said, indicative of insufficient education and respect for what the weapon can do.
I think it's important for us to focus on what really matters: That we don't infringe on idiots rights to own buy all the guns they want. Who else shall protect us from Obama and his UN army?
GasBandit
Staff member
If we made idiocy illegal, would there be anyone left on the outside?
MIND-TWISTER.
GasBandit
Staff member
So a 25 year old woman decided to youtube her abortion. Everybody on any point of the political scale seems to have something to say about it, and I do too. I'm pro-choice, but the casual flippancy and breathtaking ignorance of this woman shocks me. She's supposed to be a "sex educator" at a private abortion clinic, teaching patients about birth control, but she decided that the only form of birth control she was going to use herself was the rhythm method and not having any "long term partners?" That's almost mortifying.
As another commenter in the comments thread said and I vehemently agree, "I don't blame this woman for having an abortion; I blame her for not seeming to give a fuck about the consequences of her actions or her duty as a healthcare worker." She is the embodiment of the stereotypical poster child for reproductive irresponsibility that is invoked by the religious right any time they want to argue against abortion.
As another commenter in the comments thread said and I vehemently agree, "I don't blame this woman for having an abortion; I blame her for not seeming to give a fuck about the consequences of her actions or her duty as a healthcare worker." She is the embodiment of the stereotypical poster child for reproductive irresponsibility that is invoked by the religious right any time they want to argue against abortion.
True.
Also true.
I mean...the Police, armored car drivers, these people essentially go "open carry" everywhere they go. And pretty much nobody blinks an eye at it. So right there, we've established that "seeing a gun" (i.e., making eye contact with a weapon of some sort) is not sufficient to instill panic in an (otherwise law-abiding) individual. The difference there is probably that people see the uniform, and this satisfies them that the carry is for a valid purpose, that the carrier is assumed to have some degree of proficiency, etc.
But a loosely organized bunch of folks all walking in with a bunch of rifles? As the saying goes, "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government." Likewise, we should not presume that the attitudes of a bunch of guys passing around a trunkload of AR-15s should reflect/represent that of the nation as a whole.
--Patrick
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, if they were any kind of upstanding citizen, they wouldn't have time to go in, they'd use the drive through and get back on the road.
In other news, Al Sharpton: Elocutionary Visionary.
I'm all in favor of abortion. If normal birth control failed, if you're raped or abused, if you're certain at an early stage there'll be life-threatening circumstances. I'm in favor of abortion if there's a good medical reason, and/or you know you won't be able to take of the child. I'm OK with abortion if there's other reasons (tbd). I'm not OK with portraying abortion as the "easy way out" or the end-all, be-all of birth control. I'm not OK with trivialising abortion as "just another fact of life".
Abortion is serious. It can be necessary, or preferable to the alternative. It can be acceptable, and it isn't something you should feel ashamed about, or discriminated over, or whatever. It isn't trivial or unimportant and it shouldn't be treated as such.
Necronic
Staff member
In this weeks update of the Bundy dummies, it turns out there ARE repercussions for having pictures of you pointing a rifle at federal agents:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25469...investigating-bundy-supporters-in-blm-dispute
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25469...investigating-bundy-supporters-in-blm-dispute
GasBandit
Staff member
That's one lesson everyone should learn right off the bat - you don't aim unless you intend to fire, and you don't fire unless you intend to kill. Don't "threaten." Shoot or don't.
I would argue there are times where you would think you just need to reveal that you are packing in order to head off an altercation, but then you may run afoul of "Brandishment" statutes (or encourage the other person to come back later).
Personally, I'm of the opinion that, unless you have a legitimate reason to know I'm carrying, then you don't need to know, and unless you do something to directly threaten my life (or the lives of my family), you probably won't find out, and if you do find out, your knowledge will be short-lived.
--Patrick