Quote of the day—clam_dude

I understand that in the context we live, in which there are many criminals with guns, it may be unfair to stop people from owning them legally.  But this is because of the problem of having too many guns in the first place.  It seems to me that we should try to find some way of decreasing, over time, the number of guns floating around out there.

Or perhaps the best solution would be to limit the number of bullets produced and make them more expensive. 

But I think something needs to be done in the direction of less guns as opposed to more.  Can we agree that in the long run this will lead to less gun deaths?

clam_dude
May 13, 2015
A thought on gun control
[They “dude” is incredibly naïve, simpleminded, or went on a magic mushroom trip and never made it all the way back.

Decreasing “the number of guns floating around out there”? And how would he suggest someone do that? Forbid the manufacture of them then going door to door and asking nicely? I don’t think you have a clue how that might turn out. A reduction in “gun deaths” would not be what history would record for that little exercise.

And the same thing with the ammunition supply.

If this “Einstein” thinks any of his ideas would work then why not try them with recreational drugs and see how that works out. Oh! That’s right. They have tried those sort of things are. Any high school drop out can get whatever recreation drug they want within an hour or two, 24x7x365.

So the answer to his question is, “No!” Now shut up. The adults are talking.—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—clam_dude

  1. It’s interesting that a violation of the Bill of Rights is dismissed as being perhaps “unfair”. I wonder if he’d use that same wimpy adjective in talking about censorship, or arbitrary imprisonment, or forced testimony of the accused, or random seizure of private property. Perhaps yes, after all lots of liberals favor many of these things — censorship certainly (Hilary said so herself) and random seizure of private property (EPA regulations, abuse of eminent domain, “civil forfeiture”).

  2. It’s Progressive thinking. Progressive thinking sees a society, and immediately desires to step in and start molding and shaping it. That right there is there elm, or the roots of the problem.

    Instead of asking themselves “How can we mold, shape, organize, and change people to make a better society”? Progressives should be asking themselves, “What if we just minded our own business and got out of other people’s business?”

    That fact of the matter is that government’s job is to secure and protect liberty, and NOT to manipulate a society. That concept is simply too foreign, too simple, too new, and actually too revolutionary, for any Progressive to grasp.

    Progressives, from the president to the unemployed, alcoholic wife beater living in Spokane, all see themselves as kings or would-be kings. Someone, they assume at every waking moment, should be “in charge” of things.

    In other words they’re completely, irretrievably, pathologically, dangerously, criminally insane. Anyone infected with the deadly disease of Progressive thinking should be kept as far away from government as possible. They can go ahead and think like Progressives as long as they’re kept completely away from government.

    It is my assertion that the Progressive mind is the criminal mind, that there is no distinction. Take them out of the halls of government, out of the schools and universities, stop the flow of “legal” confiscated money, and they’ll have no choice but to become involved in some kind of criminal activity.

    The idea of making an honest living, which is to say earning what they get as opposed to relying on some kind of coercion, simply does not register with them. Mention it and you’ll see what I mean. I’ve seen it– They instantly become enraged.

    Coercion, then, is their God. They’re constantly thinking of it, and imagining new, beautiful and wonderful ways to use it. Criticize it and you’re committing blasphemy. You’re the enemy of all that is holy.

    • I think you meant “… They’d be involved in some OTHER form of criminal activity.”
      Don’t feel bad, I occasionally fumble finger and drop a word as I type, too. 🙂

  3. Also needs to learn the difference between “LESS” and “FEWER”.

  4. No, we cannot agree that fewer guns will mean fewer “gun deaths”. There exists a certain ratio, unknown and unknowable, but existing nonetheless, that compares “illegal” guns to “legal” guns. I like to believe it’s less than 1:2 – obviously, lower is better – but there’s no way to know for sure and that may be wishful thinking.

    If you cease the manufacture of firearms, and then start removing “legal” guns, the number of “legal” guns will, of course, decrease. However, if you do that, the number of “illegal” guns will, at best, remain static. More realistically, it will increase as some gun owners will refuse to give them up (think, “assault weapon bans”) and will just hide them. This makes them “illegal” guns, and they move to the other side of the ratio.

    Criminal transfers (straw purchases, thefts, robberies, etc.) will still continue to turn “legal” guns into “illegal” guns unabated, further shifting the ratio.

    So “clam_dude”‘s suggestion will decrease the “legal” guns, and will do nothing to decrease the “illegal” guns – it could even be argued that it will speed the shift from “legal” to “illegal” – virtually guaranteeing the criminal element will obtain greater firepower than the law-abiding and quickly shift that ratio from a (overly optimistic) 1:2 to a 2:1, or 3:1.

    And they think that giving criminals the upper hand in firepower will decrease “gun deaths”? You did have this in the “Crap for Brains” category, right, Joe?

  5. It is clear from this knuckleheads post that this process has been successful with braincells as he surely could not afford to purchase many of them.

  6. What this well-meaning knucklehead doesn’t understand is that having fewer guns “floating around” is not a good thing!

    Fewer guns means that policemen go back to using billy clubs. Fewer guns means that grandmothers in wheelchairs can no longer defend themselves against young thugs. Fewer guns means that the weak will again be at the mercy of the strong… because, as has been said many times, God made men, but Sam Colt made men equal.

    Guns have been in private hands for at least as long as the Beretta company has been around. clam_dude, if you don’t like having so many guns around — when they’ve been around for five hundred years and more! — then perhaps it’s your dislike, and not the guns, that is the problem.

  7. Yeesh. So, this individual doesn’t really care whether violent crime takes place, or how many die unjustly, so long as a gun wasn’t involved? Yeesh.

    • Well, if you are what you eat, consider that Clams are filter feeders, like Crabs and Barnacles, filtering water to get whatever nutrition can be gained from the waste in the water.
      Yep, Clam_dude has crap for brains.

  8. More expensive bullets would be racist, as it would be harder for poor people to afford them.

  9. I understand that in the context we live, in which there are many criminals executing computer crimes, it may be unfair to stop people from owning them legally. But this is because of the problem of having too many computers in the first place. It seems to me that we should try to find some way of decreasing, over time, the number of computers floating around out there.

    Or perhaps the best solution would be to limit internet access and make it more expensive.

    But I think something needs to be done in the direction of less computers as opposed to more. Can we agree that in the long run this will lead to less hacking and identity theft?

Comments are closed.