Sullum, I hope you get a gun and accidentally shoot your balls off, you simpering right-wing fuckhead.
Max
April 7, 2010
Comment to Gun Controllers Need Not Fear ‘Intermediate Scrutiny’.
H/T to Say Uncle for the link.
[I guess I’m just a slow learner. Even though my first encounter was nearly a dozen years ago I’m always surprised at how hateful some of the people on the left are.
This morning I was reading some of Driftglass’s posts and addition to the persistent and willful ignorance there were things that were profoundly hateful and hinting at a desire for genocide. Again, I shouldn’t be surprised but I am. All genocides that immediately come to mind were by leftists. Even the concentration camps in the U.S. last century were implemented by leftists.
One of my main motivators for Boomershoot is because the left has such a propensity toward genocide. And if they didn’t want to take guns away I would be far less motived to be active in the gun rights movement and I might not even own a gun (the election of Bill Clinton and his anti-gun agenda was what inspired me to buy my first gun). The irony of it all–the left wants to ban guns and would be closer and better able to accomplish that particular goal if they didn’t want to ban guns.
Writing the previous paragraph reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago (from my quote database):
The only reason the American people will ever really NEED the number of firearms they have is if the American government tries to take those firearms away.
Joe Huffman
December 1, 1995
Side note–I didn’t know there was an internment camp out in the woods in Idaho at Canyon Creek near where Barb and I have spent a fair amount of time.–Joe]
Yep, There are a number of left-wing blogs I read just so I can be reminded at the seething rage and violent hatred held by the other side.
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/
This one is one of my least-favorite, and more scary as she’s from where I grew up.
And of course the reason why they don’t want us to have guns is
#1. They know what they would do if they had guns, and that scares them.
And #2. They know what we would do to them if WE had guns and they did what they wanted to do to us, and that scares them more.
My favorite comment was
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/07/dc-gun-regulations-upheld#comment_1648504
“MNG|4.7.10 @ 6:42PM|#
Why is everyone pussy-footing around the real question: if I want to put a freaking lazer on my shark what level of scrutiny would a law barring that be subject to?”
Frikken sharks with frikken laser beams.
“…I’m always surprised at how hateful some of the people on the left are.”
Don’t be surprised again. The very foundation, the motivation, of the Left is hatred rooted in envy. Sure; they dress it up as love and compassion, and a lot of them have convinced themselves of it, but that’s just the public window dressing and the self-protection mechanism. Deep down they’re all either haters, or the dupes of the haters. They consider the human race in general to be stain on an otherwise pristine Wilderness Earth. It’s all very pathological.
I had owned guns since my ninth year Christmas. In all the moving and working and chasing employment etc. I ended up not having possession of any at all. I enjoyed shooting very much, I enjoyed hunting with all my soul, though I often passed a shot, simply because that day I didn’t have any use for the meat, so I didn’t kill whatever animal I had successfully discovered in range. During the many years I didn’t own any firearms, I missed them only marginally. Bill Clinton changed all that for me.
What had been a hobby and an enjoyable pasttime became a quest to preserve my liberty or to exact a high price for my death in the pursuit of my liberty. Until that time, though aware of our historical and ethical needs for the second amendment, I had thought that the issue had been settled and need not be a driving principle in daily life. Clinton changed all that and so have all his successors.
Government has only one ambition, anybody’s government, and that is to grow and become stronger. I had forgotten that. I never will again.
Is Boomershoot a gun rights thing? Or is it just a fun event? To me, it looks like a lot of fun and I don’t even own a gun.
ubu52,
You saying that gives me a warm feeling all over. It means my “evil plan” is working. 🙂
The answer is both.
I made it fun to encourage gun ownership and so people could see gun ownership as fun and not in terms of killing (either humans or animals).
It is not a competition (although some people try make it into that). But it does highly encourage the acquisition of equipment and skills to improve your shooting ability.
I put a lot of effort into finding out what makes something “fun” and then trying to create that environment.
This is just the tip of the iceberg but here is what I said about it in 2002:
Once the “fun” part has been taken care of I “own” the shooters. I create “problems” for them to solve to keep having “fun”. Those problems are require improved skills, equipment, and shooter/spotter communication. If they want to keep having fun they have to overcome the obstacles and solve the problems.
Low cost, high level marksmanship training (via sniper instructors from Fort Lewis) is available on site the two days before the event.
The end result is an event that the mainstream media (including Newsweek, Outside Magazine, a Seattle television station, and many others) find interesting and non-threatening. Yet if you want to look at it in terms of enabling people to “stop the cattle cars to Auschwitz from being loaded” it is responsible for training and equipping hundreds of “sniper teams” all over the country (and some foreign countries) with virtually no paper trail. Those teams are capable of hitting pizza box sized targets a half-mile away.
It’s tough to “make the trains roll” when anyone involved in those operations is subject to “lead poisoning” anytime they can be seen from afar.
The chances of those skill sets being needed in this country are very low. But by distributing the skills and the equipment and making that distribution well known I make the odds even lower.
Joe, the internment camp link doesn’t work for me.
Bill
Bill,
I just tried both links and both of them worked for me. Maybe it was just a short term connectivity problem. If you still have problems let me know and I’ll do some testing from other machines and locations.
There are some really angry and hateful words getting thrown around over there now.
Odd that it only seems to be coming from one side of the fence.
Good catch: I have been keeping an eye open for stories about internment camps in the Clearwater River region ever since a couple of old timers at different times mention to me that Camp X, a Potlatch logging camp not too far from Granddad Bridge had been used as POW camps for German prisoners. One of the old timers said his first job after the War was removing the log flume used by the German POW’s, (this flume ran down Robinson Cr. and sections of it still stood in the early 1990’s). The only feature he thought suggested Camp X’s possible use was guard tower positions. Buildings, if there were any, had been removed; he said the ground was disturb so recent activity was obvious. I have searched all around Camp X and have been unable to determine anything that would satisfy me. Old timer #2 told how people would ride on a sled pulled by a Cat starting at the top of Diamond Hill, just outside of Elk River, Idaho, and that the ride to Camp X took almost a full day. He also claimed there were rumors of other internment camps. The internment camp for Japaneses is the first actual evidence I have ever seen.
Joe,
I believe, if guns were only used for target shooting or for events like Boomershoot, guns would be as controversial as bowling balls.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of sub-100 IQ people who believe that a gun is perfect for self defense for everyone. There is no barrier too low for the “self defense” shooter.
Please remember: All my complaints about guns come from the fact I don’t want uninfringed CCW on the streets of my city. I probably wouldn’t care so much about CCW if a lot of my criteria were met — but the gun blogs don’t want to get into qualifications and criteria. They just want free and easy access to all guns for everyone. And I’m opposed to that.
One of my complaints about guns in West Coast cities has to do with bullets that travel through walls. Everytime I mention it, someone says “But that’s rare!” But if you look at the archived news stories for the San Francisco newspaper, you’ll see that several people have been killed by bullets coming through walls in San Francisco in the last 10 years. If San Francisco is only reporting the stories where someone is hit, then you can imagine how many bullets are actually going through walls but fail to hit anyone. (You should be concerned too since they build “lighter” on the West Coast than the East Coast due to earthquakes. Much of the brick is fake brick. Ditto with the granite and everything else.) We do not have the fine brick and concrete buildings they have on the East Coast. We get paperboard and wood because that is more favorable in earthquakes.
Anyway, yes. Boomershoot looks like one he** of a good time. I love the lay of your property because it allows for safe long distance shooting. If I were into guns, I’d probably be signing up to come play. (I think shooting skeet would be a hoot too!)
“All my complaints about guns come from the fact I don’t want uninfringed CCW on the streets of my city. I probably wouldn’t care so much about CCW if a lot of my criteria were met….One of my complaints about guns in West Coast cities has to do with bullets that travel through walls. Everytime I mention it, someone says “But that’s rare!” But if you look at the archived news stories for the San Francisco newspaper, you’ll see that several people have been killed by bullets coming through walls in San Francisco in the last 10 years.”
Ubu, you say you have just one complaint, and then you voice two complaints that directly contradict eachother. How Many CCW permits are there in SF? (I actually don’t know this number but given that SF is one of the hardest places to get a CCW permit outside of places that simply ban carry 100%, I know that the number is VERY VERY small). Cali also has lots of great laws restricting gun ownership, possession, and what guns can be owned. Did you by chance look to see how many of these cases you cite actually were otherwise in compliance with all those laws? (You know, something that would support your claim that loosening the restrictions would cause more crime)
And have you noticed that you just pop in to the comments here and drop a contradiction, then wander off. We bring up some very valid points that while your stance might be emotionally very compelling, logically is simply doesn’t hold water.
A friend of mine had her entire breast cut off when she had cancer. That was emotionally was a really scary and creepy thing. She looked fine before the surgery, and actually post operation and with chemotherapy she looked a LOT worse. (Felt a lot worse too)
If I went entirely on emotions I’d say the mastectomy and chemo were a BAD thing and she should have never had it done. But logically I know that that difficult surgery and treatments were VERY unpleasant, but also saved her life.
I think we could have a lot to discuss on this issue (I myself used to be against conceal carry), but I have my doubts you want to discuss anything at all, but rather say we do things that look and feel better that cause greater harm over time.
That’s not earning any respect.
Weer’d Beard,
Who says “loosening the restrictions would cause more crime”? I never said that. Loosening the restrictions would cause more accidents. All the qualifications and criteria I mentioned above have to do with training, selection of proper bullets and equipment, etc. — things designed to cut down on the number of “gun accidents.”
SF has something like 10 people with CCW permits; however, a person holding a permit from any city or county in California can CCW in SF so it’s impossible to know how many people are legally carrying at any one time.
“And have you noticed that you just pop in to the comments here and drop a contradiction, then wander off.” Yes, because I choose not to engage you in an argument.
See, this is why anti-rights advocates hate you, Weer’d – you are being intentionally obstinant.
UBU52’s argument is painfully obvious in its simplicity: poor people living in cities simply should not have the ability to exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights. After all, concealed carry permits cost money. Training costs money. Firearms cost money. Special non-wall-perforating ammunition costs money. Convincing Kalifornistan sheriffs to give you a permit can cost copious quantities of money (depending on the sheriff in question).
Making all of those things mandatory for equipping yourself adequately to exercise your right to self defense simply removes the option from those destitute lowlifes that no one cares about – I mean, if they cannot make enough money to pay for all that, they obviously should not be permitted to defend themselves, right?
I wish I was joking, but given the bans on “Saturday night specials” and the exhorbitant costs of permits/training for the permits, the reality of the situation says otherwise.
I don’t blame her for not arguing with me. There was a time when I’d be smiling and nodding at her dogma, and I certainly thought anybody who strapped on a gun and went into a public place was a paranoid redneck, and certainly I didn’t see why anybody needed something so “powerful” as an AR-15, or an AK pattern gun.
Then I started arguing with people who thought otherwise. In the end I found that I’d have to start lying, or change my world view on guns and human rights.
It was a mentally painful experience, but I feel I’m a better person for it.
Don’t worry, Ubu, you don’t want to discuss the issue with us, but don’t worry, we won’t let your logical fallacies go unchallenged. Our rights are just that important.