Quote of the day–GuessWho

“How many open carry citizens have committed crimes with their weapons? Answer – none”.

You are incorrect. Open carry laws make it easy for psychos to tote around LOADED weapons, which are responsible for a lot of the crime and gun deaths each year. The law may be designed for the “law abiding” citizen, but if you think only “law abiding” citizens utilize the law you are an idiot.

Why does someone need to carry around an unloaded weapon anyway? To cure their small man syndrome? To “get chicks”? To make-up for their small endowment?

June 1, 2010
Comment to Ban on ‘open carry’ of guns passes Assembly
[For some reason GuessWho believes “psychos” will not think of concealing LOADED weapons in violation of the law when they go about violating the laws against robbery and murder. Facts, such as nearly all other states allow open and easy to obtain concealed carry licenses, are apparently irrelevant to them so they make dick jokes.

What is this about “Utilize the law”? The same rational would be just as applicable to the First Amendment with the right to worship as you please, associate with you please, and to speak as you please.

GuessWho should be less concerned with the endowment between my legs and more concerned with the endowment between his ears.–Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day–GuessWho

  1. All laws are designed for law-abiding people. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the laws. What he is really talking about is that criminals can get away with breaking the law using open carry. (who’s a criminal and who is not). Since that is what he really meant, he should be completely for concealed carry since that is what the criminals will do anyway. At least with concealed carry, the citizens who follow laws get to do it too.

  2. How does one know when a post has more comments added? I see no subscribe method or RSS for comments. I think I miss a lot of updates because I don’t come back to check. Which is a shame. I know you have lively conversations here.

    If I am missing something, by all means, point it out.

  3. well Joe, you most probably have an endowment between your legs, while it is obvious he definitely does not have an endowment between his ears. So, he cannot comply with your otherwise excellent advice.

  4. This being California, a “small endowment” could mean a “tiny trust fund.”

    I’m against UOC in California for different reasons. In some places, like LA, a “man with a gun” call will get 20 police and a helicopter. This is a huge waste of police resources and the city can’t afford it.

  5. Sounds like the 911 operators in California, and L.A. specifically, could use with some additional training, then… or, at least, the application of basic common sense. “Has he shot anyone?”, “Is he pointing the gun at anyone?”, “Is the gun in a holster?”, “Is his hand on the gun?”, and other questions should all be considered standard operating procedure for those kinds of phone calls, and would undoubtedly cut down on pointless overreactions from the police. Something tells me they are not, though.

    And given that “GuessWho”‘s previous two sentences concerned sex, it is fairly obvious what he was referring to with his “small endowment” comment.

  6. Yep because when the police do something stupid we should cater to their stupidity rather than educate them to uphold the law.

    Good reason for restricting right, Ubu. Congrats!

  7. I’m against UOC in California for different reasons. In some places, like LA, a “man with a gun” call will get 20 police and a helicopter. This is a huge waste of police resources and the city can’t afford it.

    Simple solution. Quit sending 20 cops and a helicopter out to harass people who are lawfully open carrying a holstered firearm.

    911 dispatch gets a “man with a gun” call.

    Dispatcher: “OK maam, what is the man doing?”
    Hoplophobe: “He’s…. He’s got a GUN, He’s carrying a GUN down the street!”
    Dispatcher: “Where is the gun?”
    Hoplophobe: ” He’s carrying it! In a holster on his hip! Please! Send someone quick!”
    Dispatcher: “Did he threaten you or anyone else?”
    Hoplophobe: “No, but he’s walking towards the grocery store with a GUN!”
    Dispatcher: Maam, there is nothing illegal about carrying a holstered firearm in plain view. This is not a crime. Please do not call us if you see it in the future.

  8. I know two 911 dispatchers in the Seattle area. Although they have not told me they use the last sentence suggested by mike w. everything else is almost verbatim.

  9. Patrick,

    This blog software doesn’t have that feature. I should check for a later version and see if it is available.

  10. Pathological obsession with sex is a common trait of cults.

    And yes, ubu; the police or anyone else freaking out and soiling themselves at the sight of a gun (or at the sight of a black person, or a gay, for context) does not define my, your, or anyone else’s rights. The antis have been actively promoting this freaking out phenomenon for as long as I can remember, so if anyone is to be blamed for the freaking out problem, it would be the antis.

    I’m sure you can imagine that if there were a vociferous anti black people campaign, spanning several decades, that the sight of a black person, say, driving a police car, would cause pandemonium. Would that be the fault of the black person, or the anti-black media? Same with guns and gun owners.

  11. To do a little bit of Joe’s word substitution and to riff on Lyle’s comment.

    Seems I remember around the whole Rodney King fiasco there was a lot of talk about police in Ubu’s home state of California arresting, detaining, assaulting, or harassing individuals simply because they had dark skin.

    So because cops had a negative reaction to an otherwise legal activity (Driving while black, ect ect) do you suggest laws be passed to prevent the police’s foolish actions?

  12. Great comment, Mike W. This afternoon I’m helping a buddy move some furniture; he’s a police communications supervisor in the city where I live. I’ll ask him if that’s how things are handled here (and if not, suggest they do so and explain why).

    Joe, if GuessWho had enough of an endowment between his ears to be concerned with it, I doubt he would have made that comment.

    Liberalism (in the modern context, not the classical one), and hoplophobia, are mental disorders.

  13. Joe – I would participate in a lot more commenting if you did. 🙂
    Once I’ve commented, I pull the comment RSS into my reader so I can follow the thread.

Comments are closed.