The Billings Gazette trashes HB228

IT'LL BE A VERITABLE.............. (1.00 / 1)

BLOODBATH out there!  Sorry, Jay, but I'm still not buying it.  Jay, do you know how many people carry already?  TONS!  And it ain't a bloodbath.  And I'm sure that many, many convicted felons are packin' heat too.  And STILL no bloodbath.  But the REALLY, REALLY insutlting thing about this ed is the comment about the domestic abuser deal.  I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous beyond belief! Domestic abuse and gun rights are TWO SEPERATE ISSUES!  And once again, I'm waiting for the hysterical historian out there to indicate just WHERE in the Second Amendment the Founding Fathers said that law enforcement was the arbiter of gun rights!  Who in the hell really CARES what law  enforcement says?  I don't.  Methinks that they whine too much.  Now, for ALL you folks who've never carried a concealed gun,  TRY it!  It just ain't as easy as you think.  MOST people will not carry.  Where in the hell you gonna PUT a gun, in your jock strap?  Lighten up, here folks.  The world as  we know it is NOT going to end.

OK, ready, aim, FIRE away!  But first, have a little trust in your fellow man.  I do.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 17:25:45 PM UTC

p.s. (0.00 / 0)

And I really must add that gun nuts are some of the nicest, most law abiding citizens I know.  We should really  stop insulting them.  It just ain't  right to  drive them firmly in the Pubbie camp.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 17:29:39 PM UTC

hm... (0.00 / 0)

...I never thought this blog was hostile to gun nuts. Why, some of our best writers are gun nuts.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 20:24:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

huh (0.00 / 0)

I'm learning that!  

---

by: Jamee Greer @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 23:35:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know that Jay is (0.00 / 0)

referring to Larry Kralj as "some of our best writers," Jamee...in fact, I doubt it.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 23:49:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excuse the arrogance (4.00 / 1)

I think that Jay might have been referring to people like me and Widowmaker.  And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Larry has done a great job of completely derailing this thread. As regards what has occurred here:

Nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 23:58:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not only are you excused (0.00 / 0)

you are applauded.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 00:23:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Schweitzer's a Fudd (1.00 / 1)

Even if HB228 makes it out of the Senate it's almost a 100% guarantee that he'll veto it.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 18:39:42 PM UTC

I'm sorry, Rust, (1.00 / 1)

but I must call you a Dud!  You see, I think that you're a Dud, a guy who NEVER carried a gun in the military, but has LOTS of guns to make him feel like a man!  Am I right?  Please stop refering to people who AREN'T as wack as you as Fudds.  People are all over  the gun map, and shouldn't be made fun of for NOT having assualt rifles, or an arsenal like I do.  I don't belittle them.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 18:44:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fudd (1.00 / 1)

Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 18:56:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And in MY dictionary, (1.00 / 1)

there  are lots of Duds out there!  Guys who just like I described can't get a date OR an erection, so they take it out in the gun arena!  Look, I'm a firm believer in gun rights, but as I mentioned, Rust, I don't belittle people who don't.  I like the First Amendment too, but it seems that all the Duds out there hate the ACLU.  Go figure.  Sum people are just stupid.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 19:01:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Larry, you are quite an interesting character... (1.00 / 1)

One minute you're a typical liberal, equating firearm ownership to inadequate sexual prowess...then, in your very next breath, you sound like a rational human being who understands the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment. To quote Frank from 'The Departed':  "That's what they call a paradox."  

Not really sure what military service has to do with anything, but that's your own deal =)  

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 19:20:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Urban Dictionary is a funny place for that definition n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Matt Singer @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 00:03:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A better/longer definiton of Fudd... (1.00 / 1)

http://jovianthunderbolt.blogs...

My short definition:  A Fudd is someone who believes that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting & skeet shooting.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 00:17:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, in other words ... (0.00 / 0)

You are demeaning good Montana people because they don't agree with you enough.  You are a poor citizen, Rusty, and a pathetic excuse for a defender of rights.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 00:36:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You believe the 2nd Amendment is about hunting? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 01:13:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's go Wulfy... (0.00 / 0)

Answer the question.

Explain to me what your "Living Document" Constitution of the United States of America states in the 2nd Amendment.

Let's go bunky, educate the 'ole Rusty and the rest of my stupid Conservative brethren!  Tell us all what our forefathers actually meant!  

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 19:21:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Waste of time (0.00 / 0)

Rusted. like all of your wingnut ilk, you pay no attention to what you or others have actually written because you've already assumed what your opponent believes.  No one, absolutely no one, here has said anything about hunting and the second amendment ... except YOU.  And all you've said is that people who believe in the right to hunt aren't good (good enough) supporters of the 2nd.

In your myopia, you have missed the fact that Montanans DO have a right to hunt.  It's guaranteed by Montana law and Constitution.  That law doesn't reference anything about the 2nd amendment.  You're just assuming again, which is all you really seem capable of.  Your disdain for sportsmen, who are generally on your side, is pathetic, demeaning and stupid.

Now, little camper, if you want to troll out what I believe about the second, you'd best read everything I've written about it.  What you'll find is that I support it without claiming that others are unworthy of the efforts of my fellow supporters.  See, unlike you, I'm not an arrogant prick.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 19:46:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for avoiding my question! (0.00 / 0)

No disdain for sportsmen whatsoever...just sports men like Ray Schoenke.

Sportsmen and your average firearm enthusiast are fighting the same battle...both should fight those on the left who are attempting to stomp on our rights.  Whether it be the 2nd Amendment/right to self-defense or the right to hunt.

The Leftys you support will come after whatever firearm you fire your 7.62 though Wulfy.  Try to bullshit all you want, but it will happen.

http://www.opencongress.org/bi...

If only more of you on the Left were like Larry and actually understood the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 22:17:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your welcome (0.00 / 0)

Ask a question in good faith and it will be answered.  You won't do that now, or ever.  You again assume you know more than the rest of us about the future.

But I do think we have a clearer view into your BS from this. You assume, and are terrified of, lefties gonna take your guns.  Lefties like Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Kirk and Michael Ferguson.  These people are your people, and they favor gun control.  But your cognitive dissonance just can't deal with facts, so you run home to your dumb ass-umptions that it's all the lefties out to get you. You throw terms like RHINO and FUDD, instead of actually dealing with the problems at hand.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 23:00:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've written volumers about what I believe (0.00 / 0)

You have NRA talking points.

I repeat again.  Care to go shooting?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 01:40:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You believe the 2nd Amendment is about hunting? (0.00 / 0)

I made no mention of the NRA.  Try to stay on topic.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 02:13:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've been on topic (0.00 / 0)

And you still are supporting nothing more than NRA talking points.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 03:40:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What talking point would that be? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 03:41:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's not guarenteed. n/t (1.00 / 1)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 00:08:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

1pm Sunday on PBS (0.00 / 0)

They'll replay their legislative program.  This week's program spent a good portion on the House floor debate of HB228.

"5-day waiting period to buy a firearm" -- Mike Menahan (D) ...and he's a lawyer!  LOL

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 03:44:59 AM UTC

Oh what the hell! (0.00 / 0)

Ya don't even have to wait THAT long to get married! More good men have bit the dust in wedlock than by a bullet!  And then some people can't understand why gun nuts are so vociferous.  Good grief.  What is Miniham's problem?  Why does he hate freedom?  Maybe if he wasn't such a crappy LAWYER, he wouldn't have to fear for his pathetic life from his  fellow  man!

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 04:05:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

then under HB228 this punk would have been justified.... (4.00 / 1)

about 10 years ago some punk stole a carton of cigarettes from a man's open truck while he was parked at the town and country bar in missoula. the man chased after the punk who just happened to be carrying (concealed so it played no part in the petty theft) a hog leg of a pistol that the punk had stolen from his father's house....the kid got scared and shot and killed the man who was chasing him.

this would be justifiable self-defense under HB 228.no wonder the police and the district attorneys are against it. ridiculous. schweitzer needs to veto this stupidity.


United we stand, divided we fall.

power to the polite people!

---

by: wolverine6 @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:17:52 AM UTC

Wrong. (0.00 / 0)

He was carrying concealed while committing a crime.  Second, the other person was attempting a citizen's arrest for that crime.  Nothing in there was justified or would be with HB228.

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:00:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's part of the problem, syd. (0.00 / 0)

Your certainty has no role in a court of law, though any competent DA would easily agree with you.  BUT, HB 228 makes it incumbent on the state to prove that this wouldn't be a case of 'self-defense', regardless of the petty theft.  You're trusting juries to suss out 'the truth' when one witness is dead, and the other can claim conceal and self defense with the full support of state law.  And you and I will be financial liable for their ability to see it that way, beyond any reasonable doubt.  I'm glad to know you have such faith in lawyers and juries, but I don't share it.

As I have been arguing from point 1, a law that muddies the waters in an agenda driven attempt to 'clarify' the law, is BAD LAW.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 23:31:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

larry- once again you are talking out of your ass... (3.50 / 2)

either you haven't lived in missoula long enough to know that my above "story" was all too true- complete with mourning friends and a widow to boot. ask around at Boyce Lumber next time you need some screws to tighten that pot-fogged head of yours down. the man was well known, well loved and most of the missoula building trades knew him as a pretty fine finish carpenter. i don't mention the name because i don't want to re-traumitize his loved ones.

anyway- like i said- HB228 would make what this punk did perfectly legal. any moron can see that it would be an insane law to pass. even responsible gun owners who cherish their 2nd ammendment rights like me.

i am beginning to see what infuriates wulfgar so much about people who talk out of their ass. all emotion. no facts. just a lot of "look at me ma, i'm published" ego boosting from a person who appears to be extremely insecure about himself. take a hike larry. everybody is sick of you- even the gun nuts you are so cravenly fawning after. why don't you and gary marbut just get a room....

United we stand, divided we fall.

power to the polite people!

---

by: wolverine6 @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 18:16:06 PM UTC

Asstalking? (0.00 / 0)

Well, Wooferine, I got some bad news for you, pal.  It's not just ME that thinks this law is OK.  Deb Kottel, Dem, JD, former college prof, and one extremely smart lady ALSO thinks the law passes muster, as shown in her support in today's GF Tribune.  In fact, she is a co-sponsor. Now, as far as I know, Deb is not a gun nut.  In fact, probably far from  it.  What she is a very sharp legal mind.  SO, while you and I, two uneducated bozos fight it out in the blogs, there ARE legal minds out there that don't buy your arguments.  But, of course, you're more into emotion of someone being killed.  I'd be willing to wager that I have personally known more people who've perished in gun violence in Montana than any other posters on this forum, and I still think it's not a bad law.  You seem quite incapable of believing that any opinion other than your own is valid.  BTW, where did you learn THAT?

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 21:05:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How much you bettin'? (0.00 / 0)

I'd be willing to wager that I have personally known more people who've perished in gun violence in Montana than any other posters on this forum,

I might give you a run for your money on that one, Larry.  But ultimately, it would boil down to how you define "gun violence".

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 21:16:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, (0.00 / 0)

I guess my definition would be people who didn't WANT to die by gettin' shot by another.  After I wrote that, I started thinking of even more folks.  Now mind you, some of those people were NOT my friends, and some of them needed dying.  I'm just saying that I knew them,or had met them.  BTW, my list is fairly long. No need to write it, though, but suffice it to say it's substantial.  Hey, I'm old.  I've worked a lot of different jobs with a lot of different people in a lot of different towns.  I even know a cop who's been shot TWICE, but he's still alive thank God.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 21:52:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My list ain't short, Larry. (0.00 / 0)

It includes a deaf man who robbed one of my best friends (who was working for me at the time) at shotgun point.  That guy  later, along with his father, got shot to death in his sleep by his psycho younger brother.  My list includes my high school history teacher (okay teacher, really bad football coach) whose home was invaded by a man with a gun.  Mike died of knife violence, as did his wife after she was raped, and their children were left to burn when Wayne Nance set the house on fire. (They lived and they have my undying sympathy to this day.)  But it was the gun that enabled the crime.  I also witnessed the lynch mob form in my store after that crime ... except that none of the people waving their guns around had any clue who they were going to shoot (except me when I tried to get them out of the lobby of the store.)  

The one thing in common with the multitude of people I have known who fell victim to nuts with guns is this: None of them would have been saved or avenged with the passage of HB 228.  Not a one.

Now you just keep on dissing Wolverine for bringing up a case that would be materially affected by HB 228.  But personally, I think you're going out of your way to be an arrogant ass about it.  Knock it off.  'Kay?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 22:20:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then let me ask you this, Larry (0.00 / 0)

What do you think you're accomplishing spewing your crap on someone else's property?  Are you defending gun rights?  No.  You don't make that much sense.  Are you supporting the first or second amendment?  No, you're violating the property of others.  So do tell, Larry.  What have you, or anyone here, to gain from your bullshit?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 23:47:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please read what I wrote. (0.00 / 0)

Look, I respectfully tried to argue that Lefties are ALL OVER THE MAP on this bill.  Deb Kottel, myself, and many of my friends (terrible lefties all) support this bill. I guess to me it's not crap to point that out.  And yes, I am very much a second amendment guy.  I'm not pretending.  As I have respectfully pointed out many, many times in the past, we all bring out different experiences and backgrounds to this issue.  I assume that some of the people calling me an "ass" hate guns.  I don't.  Guns are simply a tool.  But to me, there much more than a tool too.  I enjoy guns.  I collect guns.  I enjoy shooting.  I love old guns especially.  I CARRIED a gun in Vietnam. (CAR 15)  So, I bring my own unique background to the issue.  I don't  know what I have to do to prove that I  am a firm believer in the second.  I don't happen to think what I write is bullshit at all.  You see, I enjoy EVERYONE'S opinion.  Eric Coobs, Rusty, Widowmaker, and all the rightwing nuts.  I enjoy talking to them.  Oh sure, I may consider what they say to be bullshit.  But hey, that's OK.  This IS after all democracy.  As far as this site goes, it is a bit depressing to me to be berated on a lefty site.  We should be better than that.  If Matt ever asks me to stop posting, I will  do so in a minute.  But he never has.  This site is CHOCK FULL of information.  It's the first  thing I read in the morning.  But what I don't do is take someone else's opinion  personally.  Just ain't my style.  

p.s.  We all have our strong suits.  Yours is using logic to destroy the rightwing arguments.  I read'em and I like'em.  I don't have the patience to try to educate people that are so set in their beliefs.  I'm glad that you do.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 00:04:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Respectfully? (0.00 / 0)

Hardly. Hardly ever.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:14:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My apologies, then , Larry (4.00 / 1)

But it sure as hell looks to me (and others) that you take disagreement WAY too seriously.  Every time someone disagrees with you, it is you who have the tantrum, complete with CAPLOCKS dysfunction, cheap insult and the weirdest of name calling.  And I certainly don't understand what is wrong about "being berated" by "Lefties" that you insult by the very use of the term.

You're right, "Lefties" are all over the map on this.  Funny thing, so are 'righties', though they have a much more difficult time admitting such.

Truth is, there's an issue to be discussed.  You personalize it by bringing up where you come from (as if any could really care) and it is no better than Rusty attacking others for what his delusions tell him they believe.  Flip sides of the same coin, and rather telling concerning a topic that you agree on, but can never agree.

When i taught Philosophy students, they invariably asked me, "So there really isn't any right or wrong in philosophy, is there?"  My response was always simple:  There may be no objective 'right' but there are sure as hell ideas that are wrong.  I wasn't telling you what to do, Larry.  I was strongly suggesting that you were going about it in the wrong fricking way.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 00:24:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The correct term is 'RINO' (0.00 / 0)

No bullshit, I honestly want to know what you feeel the 2nd Amendment is about.

You state that the Constitution is a living document, how exactly does that pertain to your take on the 2nd Amendment?  Why was it added in the first place?  

NRA talking points, as you proclaim, have nothing to do with anything.  You either believe in the original intent of the Constitution or you don't.

If you're one of the Leftys who believes "oh, if only our forefathers could see what guns have done to our culture..if only they'd known what they were doing" how in the hell can you possess even one of these evil devices?!  An evil device that isn't even used for hunting! =0

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 01:07:38 AM UTC

There you go again, Rusty (0.00 / 0)

You state that the Constitution is a living document,

Nope, I've never stated that; not even once.  I asked someone else the question about it just to be snarky.  Your paranoid delusions of lefties have left you completely out of control.

What I feeel about the 2nd is thankful that it's there in the Bill of Rights, just like the other 9 amendments (most of which the Bush administration did their level best to subvert with nary a peep from the likes of you).

What I think about the 2nd amendment, on the other hand, is this.  It's literal interpretation has already been subverted (in a "living document" kind of way) for the public good.  There are a multitude of arms that the public is prohibited from owning.  The overwhelming majority of Americans are absolutely fine with this, and so the Amendment itself likely needs to be changed.  For the most part, I'm fine with that:  the last thing on earth I would want is someone with anger issues and dementia (such as yourself) rolling around in an Abrams M1A2.   Considering how many fools there are that think the 2nd gives us the power to stand up to a corrupt government (which is the most probable reason for the 2nd's inclusion in the BoR), maybe prohibitions against such as LAW rockets and grenades are anti-Constitutional.  And if such restrictions were challenged and lifted, I guarantee you, Rusted, that the Second Amendment would die an immediate and fiery death at the hands of voters faster than you can blink your beady little eyes.

Beyond that,  I support any good law that promotes public safety without infringing on the rights most see as granted by the 2nd (Heller v. DC beiong a great step in the right direction).  Good law is law that A) has a compelling purpose to actually solve an existing problem, and B) actually could solve such problem.  The assault weapons ban failed miserably on B.  HB 228 fails miserably on A.  They were and are bad law.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 18:53:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What, no snappy comeback? (0.00 / 0)

I believe your phrase was : "Let's go, Wulfy".  In case you haven't noticed, kitten, the ball is in your court.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 23:33:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No "snappy comeback" required (0.00 / 0)

Just wanted your take on the issue

There are a multitude of arms that the public is prohibited from owning.  

Yes, yes...I've heard the "ZOMFG!!  THE NRA WANTS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO OWN GRENADES & FLAMETHOWERS ARGUMENT" since I was a teen, I get that, there are some arms that are/should be banned.  But where does it stop?

Should you not allowed to own an AK/SKS (not sure what you possess) based solely on it's aesthetics?  OMG, YOUR MAGAZINE HOLD 11ROUNDS, AND THAT'S ONE MORE THAN 10!!! IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP!!1  IT'S REALLY SCARY LOOKING!!11! BAN IT!!!11!!

http://www.opencongress.org/bi...

I read your posting that you provided...that's fine, YOU can call up Feistein/Clinton/Obama and let them know every single firearm YOU own, YOU can provide a thumbprint and have your mugshot taken so YOU can "lawfully" purchase a firearm.  I'm having none of it.  But you go right ahead, seeing as you have undying faith in Obama and his cronies to not step on your neck and squash your rights.

I'm really tired of the government having their nose in every aspect of my life.  Every time I've purchased a firearm the Feds were contacted, and they gave the sale a green light, that should be the extent of it.

If you think allowing the Feds to possess a national firearms database, then you are waaaaay dumber than I thought.

Considering how many fools there are that think the 2nd gives us the power to stand up to a corrupt government...

You really don't get it, do you?

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 00:52:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You still don't get it, Rusty. (0.00 / 0)

It isn't that I have faith in anybody.  The situation is this: quite unlike you, I'm not afraid of anybody.

Now you just go running on home to your momma (or the surrogate, your wife.) She'll tell you to pull them covers up tight, and it will all be okay.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:12:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you're self-reliant? (0.00 / 0)

Yet, you back a party who wants to regulate all aspects of your day-to-day life...interesting.

I'm afraid of nothing, I'm just tired of nanny-state gov't.  I just want to be left alone.

You do realize that every ounce of control you give up to the gov't you lose about 2 ounces of freedom, right?  

But you're not afraid of that...you'll never lose your rights!  Your rights just are, and they will always be, right?  You'll never have to stand up for them!

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:47:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm losing My OUNCES!!! (0.00 / 0)

Oh gosh oh golly gee.

You do realize that every ounce of control you give up to the gov't you lose about 2 ounces of freedom, right?

 

How much freedom do I have left, Rusty?  Do I have enough to bake a cake, or trade for a puppy?  If I bring my freedom to a Democrat party will I have to share with the ugly kids?  Will I get it back after we play pin the spine on the elephant?  Can I put my ounces of freedom in a soda for extra fizz?  How 'bout this.  Can I plant my freedom in a garden and grow more ounces of freedom?

Or maybe, I could be a mean man.  I could trade freedom on the black market.  That's it.  I could be a freedom runner, and eventually work up to freedom pimp or freedom lord.  I'd have all the ounces then ... HAHAHAHAHA!

What a jackass you are.  I am constantly vigilant of my rights.  You have traded vigilance for paranoia.  You have ideals that serve you not at all, and damage my rights to boot.  That's probably because you're dumbass ignorant, and crazy to boot, but let's see:

You read what I wrote only long enough to think I am in favor of gun registration.  You are a stupid little boy, Rusty.  I was making a Reductio ad Absurdum argument (not that I expect a tot like you to understand such adult things.)

You claim to fear nothing but you write things obviously terrified of losing control of your little self.  Sorry, kitten.  Wolves can smell fear sweat, and right now, you're prey.

You advocate stances that, if given what you want, would destroy the very thing you cling to.  Don't feel alone, though.  You and Larry can be buddies in irrelevance.  See, Larry argues, as do you, that the majority favor your stances, and that gun control is a sure loser for Progressives.  In case neither of you have noticed, progressives are burying you in the pit of "Don't Care About Your Whining; We Got Bigger Issues".  You've played out the fear.  Your God is impotent.  We're moving forward with or without you, because ultimately, no one cares anymore what you think.

You consistently lose sight of the fact that the government of this country is the people.  If we don't agree with the government, we don't have to shoot them.  We can vote them out.  Like the toddler you are, you prefer to tantrum and demand we service you.  Sorry.  Beg your wife for suckle.  I, nor any other, have an obligation to you.  We're too busy making the government we want, and brats like you have no place in it.

So you just keep on measuring the ounces of your freedom, and wailing at me because I think you're a fool for doing so.  My freedom isn't weighed or measured except by how much I exercise it.  My freedom is getting beefier by the day.  Yours ... not so much.

Trust me.  Pull them covers up tight while your mommy/sex toy whispers sweet solace.  You'll feel better.  Really.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 23:37:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When you purchase a firearm (0.00 / 0)

I bet you lie when answering question 11.f, don't you?

Like I said, you go ahead and register your firearms...you're fine with a national database for the health care industry, why not one for guns?!!?  Why not a national ID while we're at it?!?  We are a collective, right?

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 00:21:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, Weeping Matilda (0.00 / 0)

I've only filled out the "questionnaire" in purchasing one of my firearms.  Ever.

But please.  Keep up your insanity.  You're making my point for me with every key you hit.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 00:45:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Got it... (0.00 / 0)

Private sale or Concealed Weapons Permit...either way, I won't tell the higher-ups in the Progressive party, they frown on that sort of activity.

And it's not a "questionnaire" Wulfy, it's the ATF Firearm Transaction Record....just so long as you answer question 11.f truthfully.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:04:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I could be wrong here (0.00 / 0)

But, I don't recall an 11.f.  I fill out like five of these a year.  There is a 12.f, the mental institution question.

---

by: Widowmaker @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 18:32:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And (0.00 / 0)

Since I still don't believe that you're asking questions in good faith, Rusty, allow me to clarify what you're really asking about, which is what I think of you and your supposed support for the Second Amendment.

That would be right here.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 19:34:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

did the original framers envision a law which... (0.00 / 0)

would totally exonerate some punk who shoots a respected member of society because he was scared? and if so, what is to protect regular non carrying citizens from being confronted with deadly force from any knee-jerk nervous don knotts out there with paranoid delusions about all those lefty's out there who are after their guns....

the more you comment the crazier and more unsafe to society you seem there rusty.

United we stand, divided we fall.

power to the polite people!

---

by: wolverine6 @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 01:21:18 AM UTC

I agree on both counts. (0.00 / 0)

the more you comment the crazier and more unsafe to society you seem there rusty.

The problem with Rusty (besides the crazy part) is that he is an absolutist about the 2nd.  That makes him an anachronism, incapable of realizing that his ideal of purity in the Second Amendment flew the coop a very long time ago.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 19:05:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]