Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

his own party ignored and overturned him at every step in the process of his trying to preserve the Patriot Act, then trying to turn the Freedom Act (which still is horrible) INTO an extension of the patriot act by amendments.
You know how you're setting up a new computer, but you accidentally migrate all the old data into user "Brian" instead of "Brandon" and then you are faced with either the prospect of starting over from scratch or trying to find and fix the ownership of everything? Yeah, it feels like they're trying to avoid starting over at all costs. For all I know this was just a technicality so that they could start referring to it in all of their marketing materials as "The FREEDOM Act" instead of "The PATRIOT Act" to avoid the negative press the latter is getting.

--Patrick
 
What exactly did that guy think his gun was protecting him and his family from?

Plus, Georgia is a SYG state. Someone else who thought he was a crazy person intent on doing harm could have legally shot him.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Wow, because guns on campus have never gone badly, right?
There was obviously some mistake, clearly the school shooters must not have seen the signs that said "gun free zone" around the schools, or they would have realized that they were already foiled by gun control laws and gone home instead.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'm mostly reminded of how, during a staged re-enactment of the Hebdo shootings, the Red Team won decisively every time.

http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/texas-gun-owners-re-enact-charlie-hebdo-massacre/
It would stand to logic that one civilian armed with a pistol does not trump two terrorists with AK-47s.

However, as the Mercaz HaRam massacre showed, when the numbers aren't stacked, an armed civilian can make a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre

And you'd have to think more than one person in a Texas lecture hall could likely be carrying.
 
I'm mostly reminded of how, during a staged re-enactment of the Hebdo shootings, the Red Team won decisively every time.

http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/texas-gun-owners-re-enact-charlie-hebdo-massacre/
Well, except for the one where the defender survived. The article simply describes that "it was because she ran away", but if you read the details, she was able to hold off the attackers until nearly everyone could get away, after which she left. If we're measuring the Red Team's success by their ability to kill innocents, that's not one.
 

Necronic

Staff member
There was one great experiment they did where they actually had armed assailants attack a classroom filled with people with guns, who were trained to use them, who were not expecting it. Assailants won handily. Can't remember the experiment, was pretty neat.[DOUBLEPOST=1433362833,1433362495][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, to be clear, the shooter in the tower in Texas happened long before "gun free zones" were a thing. It was also long before the assclown weekend warrior gun nuts became a thing. And I guarantee you that an armed campus would not have stopped him. Want to know why?

Because the kind of people who feel a need to be armed to protect everything are usually tactically fucking retarded and are usually more interested in how something looks than how it works. Their range ninja AR-15 is the perfect weapon for ALL situations. Except when you have a guy with a bolt action long rifle in a tower that can outrange you and penetrate most body armor with an over the counter bullet.

The only thing an armed campus would have done in that case would have been to make it easier for him to walk around with a rifle unnoticed.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
There was one great experiment they did where they actually had armed assailants attack a classroom filled with people with guns, who were trained to use them, who were not expecting it. Assailants won handily. Can't remember the experiment, was pretty neat.[DOUBLEPOST=1433362833,1433362495][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, to be clear, the shooter in the tower in Texas happened long before "gun free zones" were a thing. It was also long before the assclown weekend warrior gun nuts became a thing. And I guarantee you that an armed campus would not have stopped him. Want to know why?

Because the kind of people who feel a need to be armed to protect everything are usually tactically fucking retarded and are usually more interested in how something looks than how it works. Their range ninja AR-15 is the perfect weapon for ALL situations. Except when you have a guy with a bolt action long rifle in a tower that can outrange you and penetrate most body armor with an over the counter bullet.

The only thing an armed campus would have done in that case would have been to make it easier for him to walk around with a rifle unnoticed.
Actually, it's well documented that having to take cover from return fire from both police and civilians that started 20 minutes into his spree limited Whitman's choices of targets from then on. It was still more than another hour before police finally got onto the observation deck and killed him.
 

Necronic

Staff member
And if I thought the kind of people that will open carry in the near future were anything like the people that did back then then I wouldn't have a problem.

People didn't fetishize guns back then. People didn't jerk off to the idea of fighting of the government or some intruder. You were far more likely to find a farmer of a hunter with a deer rifle than some fat slob or fuckwit in a god damned fedora with an AR-15 fucking up everyone's dinner at the neighborhood chilis.

The way these people act in and of itself makes me question their ability to safely handle a weapon in safe times, and completely disenchants me of any belief that they could actually protect anyone, seeing as most of them don't even know how to act like normal human beings.

My family owns a lot of guns. No joke, we're talking 30+. A lot of these are family heirlooms, like an old japanese rifle from WWII. A lot are newer. Anyways. I fucking love guns. But I will never like gun nuts. And people who constantly about how guns are so important to my personal safety are the absolute last people I would want protecting me.[DOUBLEPOST=1433364313,1433363843][/DOUBLEPOST]To clarify my point further, a gun is a tool that requires an immense amount of discipline and respect. I do not get the impression from either their appearance or their actions that most of those open carry nutjobs have ether of those attributes.

In fact most of them look like people with little to no discipline or self respect who are trying to use their guns as a crutch to build up their own image in their minds.

I have a problem with those kinds of people walking around me armed.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I don't think those kinds of people are a new invention. But do recall, the wildest of wild west cowtowns still had a lower murder rate per capita than Chicago under it's tightest of tightly restricted gun laws.
 

Necronic

Staff member
You know when you have the same view as Rick Santorum you may want to double check your facts.[DOUBLEPOST=1433365615,1433365422][/DOUBLEPOST]Wow that article completely bashes that notion in the head. Basically says the exact opposite. Gun control apparently made the wild west a safer place to live, but they were still incredibly dangerous.[DOUBLEPOST=1433366097][/DOUBLEPOST]I mean GB, you live in dallas right? How would you feel about Kory Watkins holding a gun near you?[DOUBLEPOST=1433366287][/DOUBLEPOST]Or another member of his merry band, who recently murdered her own family:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/16/open-carry-militia-mom-murders-family.html

Seriously, the first guy threatened state legislators, and another member of his group is a straight up murderer. This is your local Open Carry group. Great image.
 
My biggest support for open carry is to take away the "crime" of accidentally imprinting while concealed carrying. Seriously. I won't wear a pistol on my hip openly, but I do conceal at times, and the worry about that accidental flash or imprinting is taken away with the open carry laws.
 
That reminds me of something I read in the comments about some article that involved gun rights. Responsibly carrying a gun means you need to lose every single argument. A lot of these guys don't strike me as the types willing to lose any argument.
 

Necronic

Staff member
That's a completely reasonable argument. That is far different from the rhetoric of bringing a loaded rifle into an airport.

Ed: this was in response to the imprinting/flashing comment
 
Yeah, I think that's a very understandable position, but I think Necro hits it on the head with the mindset involved being the main issue.

There's a huge difference between the guy who openly wears a holstered pistol while going about his business and the guy who is showing off.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
That's generally thought to be a myth, now. (The WaPo piece is heavily opinionated, but at least links to the studies)
That article doesn't contradict the claim of the lower murder rates, it just tries to attribute it to "successful" gun control, largely relying on cherry-picking Tombstone as its example, whereas the study I quoted last time this discussion came around involved a half dozen towns. So, I guess it comes down whether you favor UCLA's research or Montana State. But now that there's academic ambiguity rather than certainty, I'll stop saying that "wild west" quip.

You know when you have the same view as Rick Santorum you may want to double check your facts.
Well, I think Krisken said something recently about broken clocks?[DOUBLEPOST=1433368674,1433368526][/DOUBLEPOST]
There's a huge difference between the guy who openly wears a holstered pistol while going about his business and the guy who is showing off.
That's a reasonable assertion to make, and I wouldn't have a problem if the law differentiated between "wearing" and "brandishing." It should go without saying that if you're going to be a responsible gun owner, you have to be.. you know... responsible with your gun.[DOUBLEPOST=1433368752][/DOUBLEPOST]
I mean GB, you live in dallas right? How would you feel about Kory Watkins holding a gun near you?
I don't live in Dallas, but the question is valid. Lemme go look him up and I'll tell you.
 
Imagine what it would be like if the same logic were applied to crescent wrenches. You would have people who carry a crescent wrench everywhere because you never know when you need one but when you do you're darned happy to have one.

And then you have people who drive around in a pickup truck with a giant airbrushed crescent wrench on the hood wearing a crescent wrench graphic T-shirt and baseball caps with crescent wrench logos in front of the crescent wrench rack they have installed in the cab, and posting pictures like this:
overcompensating.jpg

...and complaining about restrictions on crescent wrench carry because you never know when you might be suddenly thrust deep into a situation where you have to get a nut off, and they wouldn't be able to without their trusty, God-given crescent wrench.


--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
From The Blaze, on Kory Watkins:

C.J. Grisham with Open Carry Texas — which is unaffiliated with Open Carry Tarrant County — isn’t happy with Watkins’ actions.

“It’s very frustrating because every time we seem to be building momentum, along comes Kory saying something that completely destroys the respect that these bills have,” Grisham told KTBC.

Terry Holcomb with Texas Carry — also unaffiliated with Open Carry Tarrant County — said Watkins’ video message was “completely unacceptable.”

“It wasn’t symbolic,” Holcomb told KTBC. “He basically said he wanted to do something more than put his foot in the door..and he’s taking it to the next level. Completely unacceptable language and I believe he meant exactly what he said.”
Clearly Watkins is a kook. Two other open carry groups are on record expressing disdain for Watkins and his group - and the "militia mom" who killed her family was affiliated with his group as well. But he's not representative of the open carry movement any more than Westboro is representative of Christianity, or even just Baptists.
 

Necronic

Staff member
The problem is that if open carry becomes a thing these are goin to be the people carrying. There will be many reasonable carriers. But we will definitely get these assclowns, and that, that I have a problem with.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The problem is that if open carry becomes a thing these are goin to be the people carrying. There will be many reasonable carriers. But we will definitely get these assclowns, and that, that I have a problem with.
Is open carrying not being a thing making them not carry?
 

Necronic

Staff member
Not in it's current form. I actually support a rollback of rights because of these guys. Openly carrying a long barrel rifle should not be legal IMHO.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Not in it's current form. I actually support a rollback of rights because of these guys. Openly carrying a long barrel rifle should not be legal IMHO.
And you think that would have saved the Dunnachies, do you? Somehow I don't think it would have. Nothing short of a complete and effective ban/removal of all firearms in the nation (or at the very least Texas and any state within 500 miles) would have probably lowered that possibility. And not only would that option be entirely unconstitutional, but also logistically impossible.

And even then, she might have just stabbed the two of them.

Criminals gonna crim. Punishing the trustworthy for the actions of the nefarious doesn't work any better than banning water from the boat and prosecuting anybody carrying a bucket - leaks in the hull don't care.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
http://dailyoftheday.com/ecology-of-the-day-the-drought-in-the-western-us/



The western US – California especially – has been suffering a drought for several years now. Even though these states are largely desert terrain anyway, lots of water is imported from other states for irrigation and agriculture. Many food growers have become increasingly worried about where they will get water for their crops.

It turns out that federal government subsidies are playing an important role in the lack of water available in these states – subsidies that can be traced back all the way to the Civil War. Specifically, federal subsidies for cotton.

Cotton is typically grown in warm, moist climates – southern states like Georgia. However, during the Civil War, blockades of the southern states prevented them from exporting goods, so to compensate, cotton farmers were encouraged to move to states like Arizona, which had plenty of land and not many people. There was plenty of groundwater in aquifers at the time, and it seemed reasonable. And with government incentives to grow, there was hardly a downside.

Since then, subsidies and incentives for cotton growers have continued or expanded; however, the land has been unable to continue its support. Cotton requires roughly six times more water than most agricultural food crops. That means that 150 years after the Civil War, we are still trying to grow one of the thirstiest crops in one of the driest climates. What’s more, demand for cotton has plummeted in recent years.

The farmers there know it’s a terrible idea, and many would love to quit and change to different crops. However, the government subsidies make growing cotton in this area the only financially safe choice. They are guaranteed enough money to survive regardless of what happens as long as they continue to grow cotton. If they switch to crops that are more environmentally responsible and beneficial, they lose the high subsidies and risk bankruptcy.

As a result, reservoirs all over the region are drying up due to extended lack of rainfall and overuse of water – in this case, for seemingly unnecessary crops. And there are lots of questions – especially among farmers – about how the government is going to address these issues.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
WTF of the Day: Elementary Students Take Field Trip to Sex Shop


Yep… you read that right. Students from a Minnesota elementary school were taken to a true-blue “adult novelty store” as a field trip for a sex education class – and were even allowed to purchase products. But that’s only half of what upset the students’ parents so much. The parents say they were never even notified about the outing. I can remember a time when elementary students needed a parent to sign a permission slip for every single field trip no matter how benign. Those times seem like they may be behind us now.
 
Pretty sure I just had to sign a permission slip for my daughter to literally go down the road for a field trip, so no.
 
They can't even watch PG movies at school without a signed form. :/
My go-here-not-home-care took us all to see Airplane! one day.
I still don't know if they knew what the movie was going to be about. They didn't pull us out of it, though. I enjoyed it.

--Patrick
 
Top