If anybody wants me, I'll be out hunting chipmunks with a hydrogen bomb.
Gun control is a very curious issue; living in Japan in the 90s opened my eyes to what a gunless society looks like, but getting from here to there may be impossible.
As a left-libertarian I have no great issue with people wanting to plink stuff on their property, or at a gun club, with most any sort of weapon.
Any cop, police chief, sheriff, or cop org are all pretty much more 'gun-grabbing' than the Dems right now.
I do think Dean had the right idea making this a state-level issue, along with the seminal Lopez decision in which the court finally drew the line at where the Commerce Clause ended wrt DC's power to restrict stuff.
I don't hate this country; I hate about half of the 2/3rds of the country to my right and about half of the 1/3 to my left.
Pams' ex, a guy I've gotten to know and respect, was born and has lived his entire life in northern Wisconsin, where huntin' and fishin' are religion.
He keeps his guns locked in one cabinet, the ammo locked in another, and HATES the NRA.
In fact, so do all his friends, who were all raised with guns and fishing tackle in their hands.
Good news is, he's sworn off his guns, and while he still enjoys fishing, can't bring himself to kill Bambi's mother any more.
And an email list I take part in has many "he-man" conservatarians who wax eloquently about the beauty of guns, and the 2nd Amendment.
To me, they are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity.
Or maybe they're sado-masochistic fuckers who enjoy watching animals bleed, and fantasize about shooting humans.
Either way, they're assholes.
What's so interesting is that Zumbo has been so gutless as to backtrack.
I'm so glad to live in a country where guns are strictly regulated and kept out of the hands of nuts and police. (Well, not ALL Police. And those that do have them have developed a habit of shooting Brazilians.)
My late father gave up his NRA membership in the late 60s, because he said it creeped him out when he couldn't tell whether his fellows at the gun club were talking about their wives or their weaponry. What's the antonym for "early adopter"?
My Ma's dad didn't hunt or fish, but he belonged to the "Rot 'n Gun Club" 'cause it was the only place you could get booze on a Sunday.
Guys who buy their factory farm meat (about which they choose to know nothing, like the ridiculous fools they are) at Safeway and go and hunt for "sport" make me sick. My wish for them is they'd shoot each other and then themselves in the foot.
Leave hunting to the very few people left who subsist on the land (they are few and far between and you sport huntin' morons aren't one of them).
Gotta love a url with "boobsbikesboomsticks" in it.
I know three men who hunt(ed), and all three regard the NRA as crazed. My brother regards their gun safety programs as useful (in part because he's introducing my nephews to hunting and my brother is all about the safety). If someone formed an organization that provided those kinds of programs without the crazy part, I suspect they'd get a lot of members quickly--and I bet the NRA would be left with the wackos, which, in turn, could reduce their power.
It's interesting how comparing something with terrorism makes gun nuts sure the next step is to have jack-booted thugs take your freedom away. Nice of some Republic Partygoers to finally admit what we left-leaning folk have been saying all along: the war on terrorism is a war on our civil liberties.
If only a Christian fundamentalist would call some Christians terrorists, there might be some real progress in the culture wars.
lee: Don't be so sure: here is an overview of the UK firearnms incident figures for this month.
One of the reasons I was glad to have moved to Amsterdam from the UK is that because in comparison to England it's quiet and safe - but not for much longer.
Our local late shop's owner in sleepy Noord-Amsterdam was shot and killed point blank last week and also last week a massive cache of arms headed for the UK was found by Amsterdam police.
Not even placid, dairyfed cloggieland is safe any more, and I have to blame a combination of too-rapid EU accession of new countries, the Schengen agreement that removed borders, the greedy British arms industry and the utter shitness of customs and excise under New Labour for that.
Down here in Alabama, we have a term for people who need an assault rifle to hunt: "shitty hunter."
I do want to thank the "boomsticks" blogger for doing me one favor, though: She pretty much disabused me of any notion that a chick holding a gun is sexy.
I don't mind if there's some private range or something where people can rent rocket launchers with which to shoot tied & tranquilized frogs.
But if they think that any firing weapon whatsoever is exempt from regulation because of their 2nd amendment fantasies, screw 'em.
On the other hand, it's often really technically quite tough to specify the differences between 'ordinary' hunting rifles (which can be pretty huge killing devices) and a very similar device which strikes us as a piece of equipment needing regulation.
Since the gun nut crowd always think that Hillary is going to take away all their guns and apply such cold water to their groins that their already tiny weenies will shrink further, no sane discussion is possible.
"I'm sure they'd love your little camouflage outfit and folksy wit. They'd find a place for you; after all, you're an 'Authentic Gun Guy'. *spit*."
Hell apparently hath no fury like a gun-nut scorned. Do you note the engaging sense of camaraderie and shared interests, of the give-and-take of reasoned discourse with a proven authority in the field? I know I do.
How comforting to know that this person--our neighbor and fellow citizen--votes, has a driver's license, and is armed to the teeth.
An argument could be made (and has been, by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision) that your hunting guns are not Constitutionally protected at all, except those that meet the requirements for militia service
in other words: Shhhh!! Not so loud, they're already onto us!!
One of Carl Hiaasen's first books, and pretty good, though maybe not his best, is The Double Whammy.
Written in 1989, it takes place in Florida and the South and talks about fishing, guns, Cable TV Shows about fishing and guns, hypocritical TV Preachers, corruption, and sex.
I listened to the unabridged audible version while driving across the country. Learned a lot, and as usual, very funny. I mean twisted.
As a side note, Carl Hiaasen is credited for the book that a 2001 movie called the Double Whammy was based on.
Wow! The book and the movie seem to have absolutely nothing in common. What the hell happened? Did they just buy the title? Did some auteur get in the middle?
I don't want to shoot the bunny!
So Lesley, explain to me why I shouldn't have any venison in my freezer. Explain to me why I should eat a hormone-fed breast-on-sticks factory turkey, instead of trying to get my own.
Or maybe you think that deer should be taken primarily with vehicles? Deer overpopulation is bad enough now. Throw in excessive human sprawl eating up their habitat and pushing them across roads all day and night... you can't imagine the human death toll that would result from sudden cessation of hunting. Then you have the rough winters up here, not enough food to go around, so the deer starve instead. That much better than a little harvesting, isn't it?
Sure, the NRA is nucking futs. But they're nicely balanced by the antis on the other side.
And then there's SteveAudio's open-minded comment, which doesn't deserve an erg of effort.
There are few things I look forward to more than opening day of rifle season in the fall. After a week of bow-hunting on my own, I can't wait to get together with the gang on Friday night, rehash our stories from last year, play cards, and have a few beers.
Thanks, Palau, for that UK link. The gun ban seems to be working!
On choosing the appropriate level of hunting weaponry, from the immortal words of Michael Maltese:
Bugs Bunny: For shame, doc. Hunting rabbits with an elephant gun!
Elmer Fudd: An elephant gun?
Bugs: That's right, doc. So why don't ya go find an elephant and shoot it?
Elephant: You do, and I'll give you SUCH a pinch!
WHAM!
Sorry, that should be:
Elmer Fudd: An ewephant gun?
I am trying so hard to feel sorry for Zumbo..., Oops, I can't. I don't care if he loses his career.
I don't hunt. (I also do not eat "hormone-fed" anything if I can avoid it. I try to buy grass fed or organic beef. I would not eat a Smithfield ham if you gave it to me.) I do not mind hunters, and know they need to keep some populations down. I have no trouble with them. But, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, or if you participate in canned hunts, like our VP Cheney, you are nothing but an "empty scrotum shriveled dick creep who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity."
I once took the trouble to collect a bunch of data comparing the U.S to Europe with regards to regulation, crime rates and accidental deaths and show it to a wingnut gun-nut relative.
At one point, I said something to the effect that the overall strict gun control throughout Europe (minus Switzerland) and the resulting lack of, say, defenseless citizens cowering behind barricaded doors while rampaging criminals had their way with the towns should go some way towards showing the NRA's fear-mongering for what it was.
The response (and no I'm not paraphrasing, this is verbatim): "Yeah, well, they don't have the problem with the niggers like we do here."
Facts ain't got nothin' on the ol' lizard brain. Though it is nice to avoid all the dancing around and hear them just come right out with it.
Being ignorant of the gun culture, I had no idea people shot prarie dogs, especially with an assault weapon. They're so cute! Are they a pest out west and need to be culled? Forgive my ignorance on this (born and raisd in the urban East).
Too many gun owners where I live are complete assholes about it. It's a tool, you jerks, not a penis extender.
Fortunately, my next door neighbor is very low key about it, and still hunts occasionally. So I haven't had to swear off fresh venison completely.
As for me, I shot casually all the time growing up. Right now, though, I don't have any desire to be associated with the fraternity of armpit-sniffing neanderthals that own guns around here. At the moment, I've settled for a couple of air rifles that suit my inclination to pop beer cans and old glass bottles occasionally.
I grew up hunting deer, raccoon and various beasts of the air. I never really cared for it much - apart from running dogs - and was woefully bad at it. Actually, I'm a little proud of the fact that in 10 years of deer hunting, I never killed a thing. Only reason I went out was to have something to share with my father and to fit in with the rest of the boys, as the bookworm thing didn't cut it. For what it's worth, people hunt because killing something is one of the biggest rushes you'll ever get in your life. Whether you dig the rush or are disgusted by it, it's still a huge rush. Anyone who uses the "population" argument as why they hunt is, well...bullshitting you. It does do that, but no one goes out and freezes his ass off every morning to help keep the deer population down.
Still, these assault rifle people are friggin' looney. Every last one of them seems to think we're two weeks from a total facist takeover of jack-booted thugs who'll take away all your guns and....ummm...errr...ahhh...a lot of other bad things they never tell you about. Any hunter who uses an assault rifle to shoot anything is considered not only foolish and silly, but also pretty damn dangerous to be around. For my bunch, the same went for folks who were packin' pistols on their sides.
My old man quit the NRA ten years ago, gave a lifetime membership (fairly pricey), because of the assault rifle issue. He's got no problem with people owning them, but that's all the NRA seemed to care about.
The NRA is now controlled by Second Amendment zealots who oppose any control of arms. Having tried to discuss the difference between assult rifles and hunting rifles with a few of them, what I get is a bunch of rationalizations about how AK-47s are no different than a bolt-action hunting rifle, which would come as a suprise to the inventor of the AK-47, who deliberately designed a weapon that was suitable for killing human beings in combat.
I used to hunt pheasants with my dad, but while I no longer hunt I think those who hunt for sport are fine people who do take time to be careful and respect the safety of others. Hunting can be satisfying on a number of levels as a sport, and isn't just about meat or ego. Those who think hunters are all slobs are just woefully ignorant about the subject.
And here I thought Carl Spackler was supposed to be slapstick.
I don't hunt, but don't have any problem with (most) people who do. As Richard Rhodes wrote in "Farm," if you eat meat, you're just paying somebody else to do your killing for you. And I eat meat.
That said, I felt terrible for Mr. Zumbro, who I had never heard of before this incident. It's one thing to get criticized, even by strangers -- I've been through that. It's another to have your entire world, career, social relationships, etc. be taken away instantly. Instantly. It's a price that few have ever paid, and I don't think anyone here can really know what we would do if it happened to us -- if instantly, we became a complete pariah to everyone who mattered to us.
Anyway, I found myself in the odd position of wanting to send Mr. Zumbro a note of support. Does anyone know a good email address, or even a public blog, for that?
“Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers are.
Assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s version, the M-4, wasn’t too bad either.
They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:
--lightweight
--of a smaller caliber
--easy to maintain
--rugged
--Shot from the hip if necessary
--fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance.
--Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.
Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the “why” of it.
Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.
The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.
Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.
Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all back at the barracks.
This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?
Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.
The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get t
When the Shooter gets back from his lecturing tour of Asia, Australia, etc., he'll want to track down Zumbo and finish him off with some of the WMD he found in Iraq.
TBogg,
Just out of curiosity, what do you suggest dusting prairie dogs with, if not an AR? A Garand? Something else in .30-06? .303? Maybe a 91/30? I'm sure 7.62 Russian would make an excellent varmint round.
Exit question to the group: What is an "assault rifle?"
The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?
The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of rice.
So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.
Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play… thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.
The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.
The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.
The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.
Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.
There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.
Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.
Why is th
Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.
Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say “assault weapons.”
The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.
Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.
The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.
“Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.
Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.
What the anti-gunners mean when they say "assault weapons" are guns that are made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.
One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the same little ol’ .22.
What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.
Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires.
And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes and other destructive pests, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.
Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are big and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of
Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are big and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of yards? No, that takes a much bigger gun and caliber bullet. But just because you don’t use a hammer in place of a screwdriver doesn’t mean that both hammers and screwdrivers have their proper uses.
These types of rifles are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for the same reasons.
A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.
These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.
The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.
Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as "heroes" and want to emulate them.
Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one… they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.
Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.
I've never had an NRA membership because they only seem to support Republican candidates on the whole. However, the gun laws in my state (CA) seem pretty ridiculous as well. The restrictions are often largely cosmetic (i.e. banning guns that "look" mean) and geared towards foreign manufacturers.
I do not hunt and so will defer to those more knowledgeable on the issue regarding which rifles are most suitable to the task.
However, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about the freedom to bear hunting arms. Though it's true that some would try to interpet it as meaning they have a right to own a tank or a nuke, I fear the confiscatory nature of most of the legislation. Some had to turn in historic collectables such as the Russian SKS assault rifle.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, what was in the hands of the people were the the most advanced firearms of their day. Obviously modern battle rifles make substantially increased firepower available to individuals, but that in and of itself is not enough to prohibit it entirely.
Where I feel the NRA gets it right is when looking at the gun confiscation of the UK and that proposed for Australia. Historical relics that had been in the family for years were taken and destroyed.
CA Sen. Diane Feinstein has pushed some overly-restrictive gun legislation, yet at the time she was involved, she also had her own concealed weapons permit. Guns were OK to ensure her safety, just not anyone else's. She has ceased to have her own permit, but I'm sure her bodyguards have CCW permits.
The problem I have with Dems (in general) though I doubt I'll ever vote Republican for anything is that they make so many bad laws from unique circumstances. It's as if they decided to ban cars that go fast because someone else drove fast and killed somebody (and driving is a priviledge and not a right).
~
Well, it's nice to finally find out where all of you "moderate" gun owners congregate. Those of you who seem to believe that there are "good" guns and "bad" guns, and that somehow you can compromise with the side that thinks that the U.S. needs to be like Japan.
I invite each and every one of you to come to my blog. I'd love to discuss the topic with you, since you don't apparently grasp the intent of the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in specific.
Let me see if I can make you understand with the short version: The other side wants them all, and will do it in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process if that's what it takes. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or "sporting use" and it never was. And if the gun ban groups are successful here, America will make Britain's experience look like a day in Disney World.
If you don't believe this, if you aren't informed as to what's going on, if you think you can "compromise" and that it's OK to throw one group of legal gun owners under the bus so that you can keep your "bambi-zapper," or "daffy-blaster" you're wrong.
The sheer ignorance exhibited by most of you in this comment thread is staggering.
The sheer ignorance exhibited by most of you in this comment thread is staggering.
That's not ignorance, mate. It's B.O.; we're unwashed liberals, remember?
What's Britain's experience? Fewer gun deaths? Yeah, that is sad.
unwashed liberals.
Sorry, I meant dirty fucking hippies. Can't keep up with the young folk and their "hip" terminology.
Kevin Baker.......Is the name of your blog "How to win friends(Converts) and influence people.com?" Nice attitude Dude! I got your ignorance hanging right here.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
To me this means you can have your assault rifles (what ever that means), abortions, gay marriage, whatever. And can someone please get around to abolishing the IRS? We spend half the money that we've spent in Iraq, thus far, enforcing IRS tax code every year. It would all balance out in the end, and we'd all be allot happier, if we could get the Government out of every aspect of our lives. Does that mean I have a small pee-pee?
"What's Britain's experience? Fewer gun deaths? Yeah, that is sad.
"
One can read Leeds Man... or one can read a report from England. Take your pick...
------------------------------
"Gun laws that constrain the law-abiding"
For James Andre Smartt-Ford, 16, Michael Dosunmu, 15, and Billy Cox, 15, the hand-wringing by police and politicians over the escalation of gun crime comes a little late: all three have been shot dead in south London over the past 10 days.
Public revulsion over such criminality is, shamingly, blunted by the fact that they appear to be victims of ethnic gang crime. Society at large sees it as "their" problem, not its own. Such a view is criminally complacent.
We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual.
Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced. Young hoodlums are able to acquire handguns - either replica weapons that have been converted, or imports from eastern Europe - with ease. With no dedicated frontier police, our borders remain hopelessly porous. The only people currently incommoded by the firearms laws are legitimate holders of shotgun licences, who are subjected to the most onerous police checks.
Even more disturbing is the insouciance with which guns are used. An 18-year-old Angolan refugee was sentenced to life this week for shooting dead a woman holding a baby at a christening party, in what was otherwise a "routine" robbery.
The truth is that the laws relating to possession of guns are nowhere near tough enough. Possessing a firearm carries a minimum sentence (ministers insist on calling it "mandatory", but it is not) of five years. That means release, in normal circumstances, after 30 months.
For those aged between 17 and 21, the minimum sentence is three years, which means release after just 18 months. Such piffling sanctions hardly amount to an effective deterrent to these young hoodlums. The police want the five-year minimum sentence extended to everyone over 17 and the Government should not hesitate to meet that request.
But more is required. In particular, the ludicrous inhibitions placed on the police when it comes to exercising powers of stop and search have to be lifted. So must the post-Macpherson burden of political correctness, which makes any police officer think twice before challenging a young black man on the street. There is a wider failure here.
This Government came to power with high hopes of ameliorating the social crisis in Britain's sink estates. These were "their people" and they would be rescued. But the fractured families, the inadequate schools, the crippling impact of welfarism, the appalling living conditions - all have stubbornly resisted New Labour's lacklustre efforts. Conditions in many inner cities have actually worsened. And what a price we are paying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...007/02/16/
dl160
I stopped having any sympathy for gun owners and hunters in general a long time ago when they, as a group, started talking like small minded idiots and attacking everyone who dared question the sacred ideology in any way, shape or form.
Today I like to harass hunters because so many of them support George Bush who is bound and determined to destroy the habitat their quarry requires to live. I would rather not call hunters idiots and losers but they do ask for it a lot.
The other side wants them all, and will do it in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process if that's what it takes.
Dude, I am the other side, and that's not what I want. Seriously.
The mosquito's a clever little bastard. You can track him for days and days until you really get to know him like a friend. He knows you're there, and you know he's there. It's a game of wits. You hate him, then you respect him, then you kill him.
No one goes out hunting deer to control their population, it's true. But that doesn't negate the need for that effect. I don't hunt, but someone needs to, unless we want to reintroduce coyotes and/or wolves and have them wandering our backyards. (I'd be ok with it, but it's asking too much of the average bland suburbanite.)
"What's Britain's experience? Fewer gun deaths? Yeah, that is sad."
Try this:
Dunblane made us all think about gun control … so what went wrong?
By Ian Bell
RTWT.
I see I still have no reason to change my mind about talking with Second Amendment zealots.
I support the First Amendment, but have no problem with restrictions on what's deemed to be obscene speech. I figure if one can't make a fool out of zealots without being tasteful about it, I might as well go hunt pheasants with cluster bombs.
All this dust-up (by which I mean, in particular, the way Zumbo got treated) says to me is that it's impossible for the gun-owning community to have a rational conversation about hunting ethics.
nolo, it's not hunting ethics that's the problem, it's the zealotry about arms that burned Zumbo.
Mr Baker, saying that the answer to increased gun crime is allowing everyone to be armed seems to be the Nicene Creed for American Gun "Enthusiasts". It is nonsense on its face.
The American penchant for weird cults (guns, cars, The Flag) will never cease to amaze me. And, given the hysterical response (not you Mr B) to questioning any of these things, they most certainly are cults.
nolo - "it's impossible for the gun-owning community to have a rational conversation about hunting ethics."
Why, precisely, is hunting with an weapon designed around the AR-15 or AK47 platform unethical?
CTD, it's not my issue and (as they say) I don't have a dog in that fight. Zumbo, however, seemed to think that using guns based on the AR-15 or AK platform was inconsistent with his conception of hunting. When he said so, it would have been reasonable for members of the hunting community to ask the question you've just asked me. Instead, they ran the guy out of a job and out of their community, no questions asked.
nolo, it's not hunting ethics that's the problem, it's the zealotry about arms that burned Zumbo.
I agree, as far as it goes. But Zumbo's statement wasn't about whether people ought to be allowed to own certain weapons -- it was about whether certain weapons ought to be used for hunting.
Wow, invasion of the wingnuts!
I think I'm starting to understand that whole "penis=gun" psychology that people are always talking about.
Seriously, guys. It's just a gun. It's an inanimate object. I promise, they will not remove your testicles at the same time. Really.
Check out Tami's profile:
Favorite Movies
Blackhawk Down Bladerunner Gladiator Dr. Strangelove Suicide Kings Way Of The Gun Equilibrium Ronin Boondock Saints Heat Life of Brian The Matrix
Favorite Music
Rush U2 Nine Inch Nails Led Zeppelin Moby Peter Gabriel Cabaret Voltaire Tangerine Dream Linkin Park Joy Division REM Aerosmith Pink Floyd Ultravox Dead Can Dance
Favorite Books
Atlas Shrugged The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress Lord of the Rings Starship Troopers Stranger In A Strange Land Friday The Probability Broach Alongside Night To Sail Beyond The Sunset 1984 Generation Kill Black Hawk Down Gates Of Fire Neuromancer
Wow, invasion of the wingnuts!
Wow...standard answer when faced with facts and thoughts that are not wanting to be considered
Zumbo, however, seemed to think that using guns based on the AR-15 or AK platform was inconsistent with his conception of hunting. When he said so, it would have been reasonable for members of the hunting community to ask the question you've just asked me. Instead, they ran the guy out of a job and out of their community, no questions asked.
No, what he said was that only terrorists used this type of weapon and that they should be banned from hunting.
If he had had said something like:
"I have never hunted with one of these and I'm not sure why someone would. Could you educate me about them?"
he would still have his job, and be hopefully much more knowledgable. Instead he detonated the nuke blast himeself and got burned of his own making.
Hmmm...
I see we're entertaining a few 'voteyoursport.com' bumper sticker characters here at TBogg's, today.
So, Bingo players are supporting the terrorists?
I think I'm starting to understand that whole "penis=gun" psychology that people are always talking about.
We Win! We Win!
I'm invoking the well known Schwartz Rule that declares that when the gun-bigots roll out the word "penis" the conversation is as good as over because they finally revealed what is uppermost in their thoughts. 
The Schwartz Rule sounds like Godwin's Law: sometimes you have to call a Nazi a Nazi.
No, what he said was that only terrorists used this type of weapon and that they should be banned from hunting.
I agree that saying the guns "have no place amoung our hunting community" is strong language, but I didn't see anyone say that he actually said they should be banned.
No one goes out hunting deer to control their population, it's true. But that doesn't negate the need for that effect. I don't hunt, but someone needs to, unless we want to reintroduce coyotes and/or wolves and have them wandering our backyards. (I'd be ok with it, but it's asking too much of the average bland suburbanite.)
brad | 02.26.07 - 3:22 pm |
---
Hey ... circular, straw-man logic !!!
I would never expect that from a gun nut !!!
I
(sigh) I'm a lefty, vegetarian gun nut who owns an assortment of military (assault) rifles, shotguns and handguns. These have all been purchased after thorough background checks (my state is *very* progressive and doesn't particularly like private gun ownership) which I have absolutely no problem with. Needless to say, I don't use these *machines* to shoot prairie dogs with (or any other animal, for that matter) and I refuse to even "talk guns" with anyone that uses them in such a way.
That being said, I've taken a great deal of heat from my fellow liberals for having guns in my (child-free, at that) home, despite the care I take to secure them. My guns represent "evil" to them (as I've been repeatedly told).
Now, I don't know about you but....when Cheney nukes Iran, I don't expect the world's reaction will be to shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives. They will have all the evidence they need to back up their suspicions that our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have been to further the desires of the oil industry, and they won't appreciate us trying to grab up the world's resources as our own. They will, openly or not, get together to neutralize us. They'll do it overnight by selling every dollar they hold. China alone could vaporize our economy.
When that happens, our little world will come off of it's rails. I doubt if you grasp what it would be like when a gallon of gas costs $4000.00 or a quart of milk $2000.00. There will be no jobs, no utilities, no transportation, no food, just a LOT of angry people. You've seen how completely out-of-their-minds wingnuts are when they have a never ending supply of Cheetos in front of them, right? Picture them and their "blame the liberals" bullshit when they've eaten their last Lil' Debbie cupcake three days prior. Then picture a half a dozen of them meeting somewhere with their dad's .38 tucked into their tubesock, set on getting revenge on the "traitors" who allowed this to happen (not that a single one of them would ever try this shit on their own).
I suspect that when hell starts bubbling up all around us, my most fervently anti-gun pals are going to be pounding on my door in a complete frenzy, begging me for a .308 and a couple of clips. Of course, none of them have had the proper background checks and I suspect that I'll have a difficult time finding an official to explain the state of the law at that given moment. Add to that the probability that Blackwater mercs will be taking the homeland patrols that National Guard troops should be doing (but they'll be marching through the glassed streets of Teheran by that time) and will probably have a list of notorious liberals to gather up, well, things will be pretty hectic in my chic little bunker.
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical to the bulk of you but that's probably because you've actively denied yourself the reflection on *just what will happen*
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical to the bulk of you but that's probably because you've actively denied yourself the reflection on *just what will happen* when these assholes follow through with their "nuke 'em all and let god sort 'em out" plans for the world's oil-fields. It's easy enough to laugh it off when we're on this side of the nuking of Iran, the question is: how funny will it be *after* the nukes have incinerated millions of innocent civilians, after the world decides to put us down like a rabid animal, after we tear each other limb-from-limb in the death agonies of our internal collapse.
Yes, I have guns, and I'll tend to them while the rest of you remain transfixed by the coming election of 2008 (which I don't think will even happen) and the next dust-up between Hillary and Obama. We'll soon know whose vision of the future was the most laughable.
Leeds Man:
"Mr Baker, saying that the answer to increased gun crime is allowing everyone to be armed seems to be the Nicene Creed for American Gun "Enthusiasts". It is nonsense on its face."
Believing that "gun control" is the answer to increasing gun crime has proven to be nonsense. Empirically. Objectively.
"Allowing everyone" who is not, through due process of law, prohibited from being armed to arm themselves at their discretion has proven to be - at worst - inconclusive in its effect on violent crime of all types, including gun crime. Empirically. Objectively.
No "blood in the streets." No "shootouts over fender-benders and K-Mart blue-light specials." No "wild-West shootouts" by permit holders. Nothing. Just no statistical proof that the violent crime rates have been affected in any way.
But gun owners have successfully defended themselves and others against violent attack - an option that does not seem to be available in the UK. Most of our burglaries happen when people are not at home, for example.
UK gun laws have done nothing but disarm the law abiding and created a pool of victims for the predator class. They have not made you safer.
When the option is between doing something that is proven detrimental and doing something that is at worst benign, especially when the benign choice is in agreement with a fundamental human right, I go with the fundamental human right.
How about you?
Harbinger, "Mad Max" was just a movie. Really.
I didn't see anyone say that he actually said they should be banned.
He specifically said that they should be banned from being used to hunt.
Which is all the ammo (no pun intended) the Brady Bunch needs to go out and have a celebratory lunch in honor of Mr. Zumbo.
If he had had said something like:
"I have never hunted with one of these and I'm not sure why someone would. Could you educate me about them?"
he would still have his job, and be hopefully much more knowledgable.
Yes, because that's the kind of open-minded politeness and tolerance for alternative viewpoints that we've come to expect from the NRA. Not.
sometimes you have to call a Nazi a Nazi.
And sometimes we have to recognize that some gun-bigots are really, really sexual obsessive.
I know thousands of gun owners and I have never, not once, heard from any of them the words gun and penis in the same conversation, let alone sentence. But get a couple of gun-bigots talking or writing about guns and it only takes a matter of minutes before someone puts the two together.
Quite frankly it goes a long way towards helping our side win over converts. When the gun-bigots give the impression that there's something a little "creepy", should we say, about them it leaves a real distaste in the fencesitters mouth.
To me, they are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity.
Or maybe they're sado-masochistic fuckers who enjoy watching animals bleed, and fantasize about shooting humans.
And this is the kind of open-minded politeness and tolerance for alternative viewpoints that we've come to expect from gun-bigots?. Not.
For Harbinger: Roadwarrior Revisted:
I remember when the stranger came out of the dead lands to save us from the marauding hordes.
He was lean, hard and carried an M-16, his ram-charged Vespa festooned with a bundle of ragged prairie dog pelts.
He spoke in rough tones to our leader on how we'd come to be besieged in this hard land, the hordes encircling us like so many wolves.
"It happened when they took your guns, eh?" he rasped.
"No. Guns we have. Plenty of guns. And ammo too," our leader said. "It's the fuel we lack. You wouldn't have any in that road scooter of yours, would ye?"
With that, a great adventure began...
"Mad Max" was just a movie. Really."
Well, of course, you're right. It was sheer paranoia on my part to have ever been suspicious of the actions of an administration that is made up of former oil execs, to have ever put together their threats to the Taliban (a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs) with the war plans against Afghanistan that were on Bush's desk on 9/11. It was absurd of me to think that they would send American soldiers to die in Iraq if they knew that there were no WMD's ("it was the only idea that everyone would agree on") and it's ridiculous of me to think that the coming nuking of Iran is about anything but Iran's non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which, oddly, allows them to do exactly what they're doing).
I had a friend who, at the beginning of Bush's coup, said "Hey, how much damage could he actually do.....Congress will keep him in check, no matter what he tries". The past six years have been a living nightmare to him, beyond his capacity for imagining in 2001. You think it might be possible (maybe?) that the post-nuking of Iran might be beyond *your* capacity for imagining? Could it be (long-shot or not) that you simply can't let yourself "go there"?
Hell, "Mad Max" is small change nolo. They were living far better than I imagine your neighborhood to be, once Dick shoots us all in the face with "the big one".
I am also a gun owning lefty. I own a couple of shotguns and three hunting rifles. Its family tradition. One shotgun and two of my rifles are hierlooms that are 50+ years old (one rifle is 98 years old). The government should take them away from me? I'm an upright tax paying law-abiding citizen.
Guns are tools, nothing more, a powerful tool to be sure, but so is a car or a chainsaw. Any tool can be misused.
One thing to A Harbringer of Spring:
They'll do it overnight by selling every dollar they hold. China alone could vaporize our economy.
Dude, calm down, dumping the dollar would wreck every industrial economy in the world. China knows this, Europe knows this, aint gonna happen. If "the world" wrecks our economy there will be no customers for thier useless crap.
It was sheer paranoia
Well, at least the gun-bigots can't complain that we have all the wackos on our side, can they...
"He was lean, hard and carried an M-16, his ram-charged Vespa festooned with a bundle of ragged prairie dog pelts."
(heh) Wow, mega-funny Dave! So......I guess you'll just hop down to the local Starbucks for a scalding hot java on your way to work, after you've heard that the United States has dropped multiple nuclear warheads on a country that has done *nothing* to us and is vastly less of a threat to the world than, say Pakistan...right?
Yeah, no doubt everything will just chug along as usual Dave, even if millions in India end up dying of radiation poisoning (I mean, it's not as though *those* people matter, right?). The world will just say "Hey, that's the US just being the US, we've all gotta do out thang, right?".
Just "keep shopping" Dave and everything will be just dandy.
"Dude, calm down, dumping the dollar would wreck every industrial economy in the world. China knows this, Europe knows this, aint gonna happen."
Calm down? Friend, are you aware that our government is going to use nuclear weapons with the rationale that *no one* will challenge us if we do, thereby "cementing our status" as sole superpower from now on? You think that China wouldn't be willing to take an economic hit to shut down a country that plans on strangling the amount of oil that comes down the pipe to them? Mutherfukker, they would be *idiots* to let themselves be played that way, and they aren't idiots, *our guys are*.
Think before you tell anyone to "calm down" in times like this friend, if you had any sense you'd be screaming STOP THIS SHIT RIGHT NOW at the top of your fucking lungs, rather than playing the "it'll never happen" game.
We will fight them in their prairie dog villages so we don't have to fight them here.
I know thousands of gun owners and I have never, not once, heard from any of them the words gun and penis in the same conversation, let alone sentence.
That's why it's called "subtext" and "subconscious," hon.
You don't think you're saying it, but the rest of us hear it loud and clear.
And, yes, I come from a family of hunters. I was the highest-scoring person in my gun safety training course. I grew up around guns, though I don't have one myself, as I think my history of depression means I shouldn't keep easy means of suicide within reach.
But, then, my dad was a responsible gun owner, which puts him in a distinct minority these days.
He specifically said that they should be banned from being used to hunt.
Show me where he specifically said they should be banned.
Russell! Nice.
I once made fun of tree stands to a hunting co-worker. Whoops!
As I clicked off the comments window, I realized that quite possibly it was Doug Giles that brought the crew by to enlighten the unwashed.
I consider myself a capital "L" Liberal and have never had any problem with the private ownership of sensible firearms for target shooting at a bona fide shooting range where rules of safety are strictly enforced. My definition of "sensible" gun ownership: One or two pistols for home defense/target shooting, one rifle and one shotgun for skeet shooting and or hunting if that is your pleasure. There is absolutely no need - NONE- for assault weapons with 100 round magazines, 50 caliber pistols and the like. If you can't hit your target with two or three rounds from a moderaate caliber handgun or rifle, then you've got absolutely no business having an arsenal in your home -period! Zumbo is just another unfortunate individual who was naive enough to actually believe that you can speak truth to the reichwing in this country without fear of retribution. Fuck the NRA!
They may be idiots, but they're well-regulated idiots
This particular idiot is far from alone. No less an arch-idiot than the Perfesser hisself has recently authored a learned paper about the communal rights embodied in the 2d Amendment. These would be the right to form militias, and a right for these militias to engage in rebellion against the Federal gummint. They want us to have a more perfect Union, you know, something like what Iraq and Afghanistan has right now, or Lebanon had 15 years ago.
Actually, this is well past idiocy, and far into insanity.
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical...
Why, yes it does.
"A Harbinger of Spring," I don't know many paranoid survivalists who are lefties. I am calling bullshit on you. You sound more like another version of a concern troll.
And this is the kind of open-minded politeness and tolerance for alternative viewpoints that we've come to expect from gun-bigots?
Jack, we are not trying to engage you in conversation, we are just laughing at you. We have heard all your crap before. You don't think you are coming at us with an original insight, do you?
Gun-bigot? That is one serious fruit loop talking point.
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical...
No, actually it doesn't, not after the stories my own Grandfather told me of what post WWI Germany was like. Wheelbarrows full of money, and nothing to eat.
I have been looking around for a over and under shotgun off and on for a while now. It seems that 2/3 of the shops I go into are SWAT R US places. You know places where the conservative types go to peruse the paramilitary black chic and get stiffies over the lastest Glock.
This is a direct result of the fucking decline of the NRA.
The days of the local gun store with the local guys would come and look at the new deer rifle or plinking .22 or a bird hunting shotgun are fading.
These guys may have been rural good ole boys but most believed in respecting weapons, teaching safety, and demanding both from their family members and friends whom they hunted with.
Guns being sold today seem to be about protecting yourself from home invasions of rabid drug dealers, or some such threat that rarely happens.
I went out shooting skeet with some friends several months ago. This putz shows up with a side by side shotgun. You can tell he just bought the fucking thing. It was stiff, not broken in, he was clumsy with the damn thing. Since we were sharing the range, I got to watch this guy shoot and after a few birds he says (I paraphrase) "Man, those things sure move faster than people."
Friggin idiot.
"Show me where he specifically said they should be banned." - nolo
And I quote:
"This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."
End quote.
Good enough?
You don't think you're saying it, but the rest of us hear it loud and clear.
Thank you for proving my point about being sexual obsessed. Doesn't it get at least a little "icky" feeling sometimes when you walk around hearing strangers' thoughts about "penises" all day long?
How long have you had this ability? How do you feel about your mother? Your father?
But, then, my dad was a responsible gun owner, which puts him in a distinct minority these days.
Oh, I'd put him in with the rest of the 99 percent of 120 million or so responsible gun owners. Pretty good crowd to be in.
"I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."
That would seem to say that he wants them banned from hunting, no?
jswift, if you can give me a link to where he said that, I'll be satisfied. For right now, though, it seems his original post is gone and is being represented by others.
My definition of "sensible" gun ownership: One or two pistols for home defense/target shooting, one rifle and one shotgun for skeet shooting and or hunting if that is your pleasure. There is absolutely no need - NONE- for assault weapons with 100 round magazines, 50 caliber pistols and the like. If you can't hit your target with two or three rounds from a moderaate caliber handgun or rifle, then you've got absolutely no business having an arsenal in your home -period!
For handguns alone I’ve got:
one .22 semi-auto that’s a “trainer” gun for those I am introducing into the sport.
One .22 revolver for trainees to show them the difference between a wheelgun and a semi-auto
One .32 Keltec when I absolutely need to carry concealed in the lightest weigh clothing without being made.
One 9MM when I feel a need for a capacity of 17 rounds or so
One chopped .45 when it’s winter and everyone’s wearing a heavy coat so the big gun is needed…
One .357 revolver when the arthritis is acting up and chambering a semi is just too hard
One five inch 1911A1 as a commemorative of my years in the military
One single action only cowboy pistol for competition in cowboy events
My goodness, that is eight handguns and I haven’t hit bottom yet. Each has a reason and I really resent Gene’s attempted micromanagement of what I desire for my personal use. I don’t tell him what letters to the editor to write to the local newspaper, he doesn’t tell me what to have in my gun safe.
nolo, I dont know if the quote is real, I was just commenting on the context. If it is a real quote, the writer or speaker seems to be saying that he/she means that assault weapons should be banned from hunting. Does that mean he/she wants to see them banned entirely? Don't know the answer to that.
I don't know many paranoid survivalists who are lefties. I am calling bullshit on you. You sound more like another version of a concern troll.
Hang out at some of these far left boards and you’ll see plenty of Dims just like this. We feel compassion towards them but we don’t discount that they can put pressure on their representatives that we can’t.
Jack, we are not trying to engage you in conversation, we are just laughing at you. We have heard all your crap before. You don't think you are coming at us with an original insight, do you?
I’m content to let the fence sitters who read these posts decide who has the better of it.
Guns being sold today seem to be about protecting yourself from home invasions of rabid drug dealers, or some such threat that rarely happens.
Come to my neck of the woods and I'll take you to a dozen gunshops within a hours drive that will delight your heart and make you feel all tingling inside.
One often finds what is in one's heart.
jswift, the only quotes (as opposed to characterizations) of what Zumbo said that I have seen indicate that Zumbo feels strongly about whether guns built on an assault-weapon platform are appropriate hunting weapons. That's fine -- I imagine it's something hunters can feel strongly about. I didn't see anything, though, that indicated he'd called for a ban.
"jswift, if you can give me a link to where he said that, I'll be satisfied. For right now, though, it seems his original post is gone and is being represented by others." - nolo
Ah, I see. Since the original has been yanked by the Outdoor Life web page, and the Google Cache is also gone, well then the outrage generated by Zumbo's comments must be fake, because we're all lying about what he said.
I copied his post - verbatim - the day I was made aware of it, and fisked it. The entire piece (with my commentary interspersed) is available here (his words are in blue.) Those are his words. You can deny it all you wish, but they are.
His first "apology" - verbatim - is available here.
The portion of Tom Gresham's interview of Zumbo on his radio show is available here, to the best of my availability to transcribe the exchange. That discussion is available on iTunes, if you care to listen.
Thank you for proving my point about being sexual obsessed. Doesn't it get at least a little "icky" feeling sometimes when you walk around hearing strangers' thoughts about "penises" all day long?
Not particularly, no, unless they insist on showing them to me, like you did in your post at 8:52 p.m. Really, there was only the slightest hint that there might be something a little weird about your gun obsession and you felt absolutely compelled to whip it out, didn't you?
When I get into online discussions of the banning of sex toys (and I have), I only feel I have to mention that I have them. I don't feel compelled to detail each and every one I have. And yet you felt that compulsion about detailing your gun collection. Veddy interesting, as Freud might say.
Kevin Baker, quit the frikkin overreaction already. I made statements based on the information I had. Then I asked for information, and I thank you for providing links.
Nowhere did I say anyone was lying. You need to chill.
Nolo:
You said "it seems his original post is gone and is being represented by others."
A few minutes of search engine use would have located a copy of his original post, or that particular quote from it. I spent six months back in 2002 on Democratic Underground discussing gun control with its denizens. Pardon me for painting you with the broad brush of my experience there.
That would seem to say that he wants them banned from hunting, no?
He wants them banned from hunting, and from there it is a very small step for banning them altogther. The BATF has already taken it upon itself the power to ban guns that have "no legitimate sporting purpose."
Thank you for the apology. But I have to ask, why did Zumbo (who apparently is someone who loves both guns and hunting) get treated even more harshly by other aficionados of guns and hunting that you might treat a DU denizen? Is there no room in the hunting community to talk about the issue he raised? And if so, why not?
""A Harbinger of Spring," I don't know many paranoid survivalists who are lefties. I am calling bullshit on you."
Am I supposed to give a shit that you don't believe I'm from the political left? You should see the reception I get on some of the overwhelmingly Right-wing forums I occasionally post to. That fact that I don't fit your small-minded notions is of no concern to me chum. If you've bothered to read what I've written, I've got much bigger things on my mind.
It's howlingly funny, in a sad sort of way, that you can't imagine anyone on the left looking beyond what happens when a rogue country (the US) drops a series of nuclear warheads on a country that has done *nothing* to us, save for sitting on "our oil". And seeing karma come back and bite us on the ass is "paranoia" on my part? Chum, YOUR *avoidance* of turning the page after the bombs drop tops my "paranoia" by leaps and bounds.
Those clowns are right on the verge of bringing the darkness on all of us....you aren't going to stop 'em, so you might want to give *just a little* thought to what happens next, when our little world falls to pieces.