Home / The Assault on Gun Rights Begins

The Assault on Gun Rights Begins

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You knew it was coming, but I bet you didn’t think that the left’s assault on gun rights would come as quickly and as aggressively as it has. While sensible state legislatures are considering allowing concealed carry on college campuses and expanding gun rights, the out-of-step administration and Democrats in Congress are launching an all-out attack on the Second Amendment in what time they have left over after bankrupting the nation.

It’s a two-pronged attack, with gun-bashing Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that it’s time to bring back the assault weapons ban and Democrats in congress seeking to impose just about every restriction and rights violation gun owners have ever feared short of outright gun confiscation in Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act (H.R.45), sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL).

Attorney General Holder has a long record of hostility to gun owners and their rights. He supported and was involved in enforcing the unconstitutional DC gun ban, has previously endorsed a nationwide prohibition on guns, advocated banning private gun sales at gun shows during his confirmation hearing, and is now proposing the return of the broadly-worded assault weapons ban, which included many common handguns and hunting rifles as one of “just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make.” I can only imagine what the other changes are, when he is on record saying, “The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation In a well-regulated militia.”

Bobby Rush’s manipulatively titled gun bill seems designed to fulfill many of Holder’s most extreme gun-grabbing dreams. It proposes a structure for licensing every gun owner in the country, which would require a test, an expanded background check, a waiting period, and a fee in order to get a license.

It also includes draconian enforcement measures, like a two-year jail sentence if your gun is stolen and you don’t notify the federal government within 72 hours, potentially 10 years in jail for having an unsecured gun and ammunition in the same house with a child under the age of 18 (so much for taking my teenager hunting with me), extensive permanent tracking of all gun owners with a stiff penalty for not filing a change of address with the government, and the right for federal agents to search your house without a warrant at any time if you are a licensed gun owner. It also requires periodic license renewals so that the government can check up on you and keep charging you additional license fees.

As Holder has made very clear from his comments, for this administration there is no such thing as gun rights. With their orgy of pork spending they have already demonstrated that they are willing to use their control of congress to ram through legislation without even talking to Republicans. With this bill, and plans which are clearly under way at the Justice Department, they will be able to track all guns and gun owners, come to their homes, seize their guns with no due process, and jail them if they try to resist in any way.

The only thing standing in their way is the United States Supreme Court, where we are lucky enough to have a majority of Justices who still believe in the Bill of Rights. However, District of Columbia v. Heller, which ended the DC gun ban, was struck down by a mere 5 to 4 majority, and two of those who voted with the majority, Justices Scalia and Kennedy, are 72 years old. Let’s hope they stay healthy and resolute, because they are the only defense we have left against those who would like to shred the Bill of Rights and replace the rule of law with the rule of tyrants.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.
  • You might want to go to Sean Hannity’s web site and get your vote in for what kind of revolution you would most like to promote and participate in. Vote early and often.


  • btw imo it’ll never pass, or, if it does, it will be a significantly watered down version having few, if any, teeth. Even most of the liberal Dems get weak kneed at the prospect of facing down the NRA.


  • STM

    Time to bury them assault weapons …

    Stockpile that ammo.

    The Reds are-a-comin’

  • Doug Hunter

    Damn, I should have invested in assault rifles instead of financial stocks.

  • They’re not coming, Stan, they’re here.


  • Time to bury them assault weapons …
    Stockpile that ammo.
    The Reds are-a-comin’

    They’re not coming, Stan, they’re here.

    This is all getting very musical – romantic even…

    Isn’t it rich?
    Isn’t it queer?
    Losing your freedoms this late
    In your career?

    And where are the clowns?
    Quick, send in the clowns.
    Don’t bother – they’re here.

  • That was with apologies to Steven Sondheim, folks….

  • A Duck

    lol @ Ruvy

  • Cindy


  • Cindy

    That’s not bad Ruvy. We can work with that.

  • Cindy


    It’s not the government’s fault. It’s the people who vote. Isn’t that what you told me?

    I still wonder why you defend the idea of a Republic. It never seems to work for you any better than anyone else.

  • It’s hard being Dave.

  • Cindy

    Dave supports a form of government where people don’t make their own decisions. We can’t trust you to make your own decisions, right Dave?

    So, Dave gets what he asks for. A choice of who will represent him. Who do you like this round Dave?–Larry, Moe, or Curly.

  • Cindy

    Some people need more of a stake in the government. After all, they have more stuff…it only makes sense.

    Dave says it has something to do with freedom.

  • STM

    Cindy: “I still wonder why you defend the idea of a Republic.”

    Bingo. Never should’ve rebelled against the Crown. See what happens? You folks over there need the Queen back, and a proper flag.

  • We have quite enough “Queens” thank you very much!

    Drama queens, welfare queens, drag queens.
    When you think about it the word ‘queen’ is a rather strange bird. It seems like a word one would use in this sort of context: I fell off the ladder into the bushes and got a big queen stuck in my butt.

    Ah, I don’t know. Maybe not. 🙂


  • It’s not the government’s fault. It’s the people who vote. Isn’t that what you told me?

    The people who vote ARE the government, effectively. So it is largely their fault that they elect the useless tools we have in office.

    I still wonder why you defend the idea of a Republic. It never seems to work for you any better than anyone else.

    Because it works better than the alternative. But like any system of government it will inevitably break down. It took 230 years, which is not bad, but we can see it breaking down into demagoguery and populism right now.

    We’re about due for a revolution, but I’d like it to be ina positive direction rather than where it seems to be going right now.

    Dave supports a form of government where people don’t make their own decisions. We can’t trust you to make your own decisions, right Dave?

    What I favor is a system where people make all their own decisions and the government is not involved in those decisions.

    Some people need more of a stake in the government. After all, they have more stuff…it only makes sense.

    I had the thought the other day that perhaps we should outlaw all lobbying and then create a third legislative branch made up of lobbyists for unions and businesses who participate directly in government. It’s an appealing concept.


  • STM

    Geez, mate, that must’ve bloody hurt!

  • STM

    B’tone’s fantasy ladder episode, I mean, not Dave sitting up 24/7 and forgetting to shave whilst working out where to stash his guns and at the same time plotting the demise of the Obama administration.

  • Cindy


    I won’t criticize anything you said Dave. I like to encourage progress.

    I especially like this:

    What I favor is a system where people make all their own decisions and the government is not involved in those decisions.


    There’s no telling how long that comment will work for me. It should be interesting though trying to explain to people today exactly why I keep laughing. “Well, you see, it has to do with the dangers inherent in cleaning the gutters and queens and things…”

  • After I submitted my “ladder” comment, I thought perhaps it was crossing a line considering the source (that being me.) It just occured to me that we do seem to have any number of people and groups who either refer to themselves or are refered to by others as “queens” of one sort or another.


  • Don’t worry, B-tone. There’s always a place on a political forum for discussion of assorted quirky objects introduced abruptly into locations which enjoy very little sunshine.

  • Cannonshop

    …because they are the only defense we have left against those who would like to shred the Bill of Rights and replace the rule of law with the rule of tyrants.

    But the people Want the rule of Tyrants. This is the government that the American People have decided they desire. It’s over, Dave. The People proved in september of last year that what they want, is the Nanny-State, and again in November in the polls.

    Americans don’t want to be free, they want to be RULED. Ask the winners.

  • Cindy D


    Are you the pot or the kettle? I always get those two mixed up.

  • Baronius

    Cannon, all we know is that liberalism in the most appealing package can defeat moderation in the least appealing, in the midst of a stock market collapse. I don’t think that’s an endorsement of totalitarianism on the part of the voters.

    In fact, I’ve been impressed by the number of people making coherent arguments against the stimulus package. My deepest fear has been that Republican votes really are for lower taxes, and Democratic votes for more spending. (That, and spiders.) But in the debates over the past month, you’ve heard the rightward arguing against big government, and the leftward arguing for more government. It’s really about competing visions, not just marketable packaging.

  • Baronius

    Random searches of gun owners’ houses? Really?

  • Ah, we have started the descent down the slippery slope to dawning Mao jackets and marching in glorious lock step. A nation of sheep? Baah!


  • The Obnoxious American

    I just can’t believe people were so easily cowed into voting for this guy. I know several indies and moderate republicans who did, all telling me how they thought Obama was “too smart” to ever do anything like this. I expected that they’d be proven wrong over the course of his candidacy, but actually it only took a month.

  • Hope and Change?

    It was obvious! Day after day during his campaign at his “Big Teleprompter Reading Events” The thousands of moronic drones all saying over and over again….

    Duuuuh…Yeth We Can…Duh….(drool)… Duh…Yeth we can!…Duhhhhhh

  • From the ABC story:

    “The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

    “A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country,” LaPierre said. “I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it’s clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution.”

    Of course, he’s right. The Second Amendment clearly states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds shall not be infringed.”

    Mind you, I’d better not say too much more. My neighbor, Bert ‘Bang Bang’ Gunnerson-McShootalot, who happens to be the chairman of our local NRA chapter (and verse), has just slapped 52 constitutional lawsuits on me for suggesting to him that he might maybe want to consider the possibility of thinking about decommissioning one of the four 15-megaton hydrogen bombs he keeps for home defense.

    Sub judice and all that, you know.

  • Clavos

    In light of the constitutional guarantee of six hydrogen bombs per citizen (up to ten in times of war), I can see why ol’ Mac is suing you; I would too (and did, when the neighbors objected to the minefield in my yard a couple of years ago — I won because the judge agreed with me that their dog had no right to be in my yard in the first place).

  • Baronius

    Dread, that’s exactly what the Constitution says. You might not like that it says so, but it does. The language is as strong as freedom of the press, the protection against self-recrimination, or anything else in the Bill of Rights.

  • Is that ‘constitutional’ in the sense of going out for a wander, Clav?

  • Clav,

    Or was it that the plaintiffs had, on a drunken lark decided to test their luck in your field and um, struck paydirt, as it were. :%)


  • I’m well aware of what it says, Herr Baron, and I’ve said before on this site that whether I like it or not, it deserves to be honoured just like any other part of your Constitution.

    Frankly I’m finding both sides of the debate more and more absurd, especially the more extreme views such as LaPierre’s. You have to at least appreciate that it might not be entirely reasonable to select for home defense a weapon that looks like something a premenstrual Terminatrix might use, rather than a simple handgun; and that it perhaps isn’t entirely unreasonable, considering the extreme lethality of such firearms, to want to place some restrictions on their sale and ownership.

    I can give you a good example of absurdity from the other side as well if you’d like. But this comment was getting a bit long-winded.

  • BTW, I’m sure I’m not the only one wondering where all the gun nuts are who usually descend within minutes on articles like this.

  • bliffle

    Actually, it looks like the shoe is on the other foot.

    I understand that the NRAs price for permitting DC to have a rep is elimination of the strong DC gun laws.

  • Arch Conservative

    Most “gun nuts” aren’t nearly as dangerous as most “government nuts.”

  • Bliffle, the DC gun law was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Nothing was necessary legislatively.


  • Cannonshop

    #25 Baronius, it’s not just the vote. Cindy, I’m both Pot, and Kettle, depending on the issue.

    What I’m not, is stupid or blind enough to ignore the way people around me see politics, always asking for more laws, always asking for more benefits, for more help, for more of everything without ever wanting to do any of it for themselves.

    The People want a government that will give them everything, by definition, that’s a government that will TAKE everything from them as well. Freedom at its root, is being responsible, and the majority of Americans today don’t want to be responsible-they want someone else to shoulder the load, take the blame, and pick up the cheque.

    And Cindy, that’s people on BOTH sides of the party spectrum. Nanny-state “Conservatives” want Government to tell you who you can marry, when you can have sex, and with whom, and how, whether you can have an abortion, etc. etc., Nanny-State Liberals want to tell you how much you can be paid, what work you can do, what kind of car you can drive (and whether your “need” is great enough to have one), Where you can live, and who you can employ.

    Both of them want to tell us who can own guns.

    Neither of them, in a FREE society, would have the ability to do more than make pretty speeches about it.

    Well, we’re not a free society, because the people don’t want it that way. It’s over. It was a good run while it lasted, but it’s over.

  • I’m curious. Is there a large national or more likely a state by state “regulated militia” made up of gun owners everywhere? Are ya’ll members? If so, I suppose it’s militaristic in its nature, right? Do you attend meetings? Do you all wear neat camouflage outfits & smear black shit on your faces? Are some of you generals and captains and others grunts? Do you automatically obtain a higher rank by having more and/or more lethal weapons? Does a 50 caliber machine gun or a bazooka (neato) come with a rank of say, Major? I’d think anyone with an attack helicoptor having one of those super death ray Gatling guns would automatically get five stars, huh?

    Do you get to go out in the woods and play army? In order to save on expensive ammunition do you pull the trigger and say KAPOW or SPAT or just BANG, BANG? (or in the case of an automatic – bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang, yada, yada, yada?)

    Another thought. Man, the CPAC meetings are ongoing. Joe the Fucking Idiot has stated his desire to return to the days when if somebody said something bad about the military, that someone else would just up and shoot them. When was that exactly? He also said that it’s best that he’s not a member of Congress because he would likely be going around smacking members he didn’t like. What a guy!

    Oh, and Jindal simply lied with his “sheriff/boat” story. But that’s okay. He’s a conservative. All is forgiven.

    Oh, oh, one more thing. Let’s all take a flight on Ryanair, take a whiz in a paper cup and leave it in the seat back slot. I suppose if you have to do a #2, just drop trow and stick your butt out in the aisle. (Better bring your own TP, though. They’d probably charge you a couple of pounds for that.)


  • Cindy


    So you’re ready for no government? Or you just want the same thing everyone else wants but just your own version of how much power a government gets and who it should work on behalf of?

  • Baronius

    Cannon, conservatives will let you do anything you want to except have an abortion, and maybe they’ll listen in on your phone calls if you ring up Yemen. You can’t compare that to the liberal agenda. The Right will rename your french fries; the Left will regulate the oil they’re cooked in, tax them as luxury items, and call in Family Services if you feed them to your kids.

  • Baronius

    Actually, that’s not true. Half of all conservatives want to get rid of abortion, and they’re all weirded out and apologetic about getting government involved in the protection of human life. Where do you see any self-assessment on the liberal side? Any hesitation about pulling on the levers of power?

  • B-tone, your #41 is just bizarre. Are you off your meds?

    If you read the founding fathers they believed that the militia consisted of all able-bodied adult males who could potentially enter into armed service. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?

    As for your last paragraph, I’ll just lay that off to brainworms or something.


  • Cannonshop

    #41 Baritone, I’ve installed the Lavs on Ryanair planes-given the layout I’ve seen at the Renton Factory, I’d say you’re more likely going to be hungry than packed full-up needing to potty by the end of the flight. Just in case you can’t find them (they are small, after all) there’s one forward, right next to the entrance to the flight deck (the most obvious and visible one-the front row left doesn’t have a divider covering the path to the exit). It’s to the left of the flight deck door, just in case you get lost.

    The other’s in the rear, opposite the Galley.

    Now, given that the planes (usually 737-800’s) are damn close to max-capacity seating, you might end up having to wait until landing before there isn’t a fat broad or guy and their snivelling kid in there, but it’s not because the planes aren’t equipped. If you wanted a “More comfortable” flight than a Ryanair cattle-coach-car, you should’ve booked Lufthansa or British Airways-the prices are high enough to keep enough seats empty that the lav is always ready for your use-especially after the rubber-chicken and/or mystery-meat in-flight meal hits your colon, or fly Indian Air, and fly first class, so that you don’t have to look at the dirty peasants (air India’s rep’s comment) who’d be buying tickets on Ryanair anyway.

    #42 Cindy-I believe that government’s primary responsibility is to prevent people from going tribal on each other, followed closely by keeping people from invading. It has a legitimate function keeping states from taxing each other’s goods, and keeping the roads open. None of these are Nanny-State items. National Defense against outside aggression is part of the job, keeping people from going feud/cycle-of-violence is part of the job, teaching kids to read? well, it’s an acceptable task-literate people make better decisions on average.

    Propping up crooked businessmen is not a legitimate function. Telling people who they can sleep with, who they can marry, how they can sleep with their partner? Not legitimate (with the exception of kids-adults with kids is just wrong, no matter how you slice it, preventing that is a legitimate function).
    Government has no business telling me I can’t kill myself, it has no business telling me what my wages will be (even if it’s a raise), it has no legitimate right to say what colour my house is, how long I keep my grass, what kind of dangerous-to-me pets I may own, what kind/condition of house I live in, the make, model, or year of automobile I may have (or how much gas it does or doesn’t use-there’s a legitimate function in demanding that the turn-signals, brakes, and seatbelts work-but no legitimate function telling me to wear them-that should be a matter of common-sense, people who don’t tend to die in accidents, and I’m good with that.)

    It’s acceptable for Government to tax my use of the roads, so long as the money goes To the MAINTENANCE of the roads. Taxing one thing, to send the money elsewhere is not, imho, legitimate.

    In fact, Cindy, Taxes to raise revenue for services everyone makes use of are legit-so long as that’s what the tax is for and everyone who uses the services pays into it…equally.

    (yes, I’m a Flat-Taxer. Get rid of the snakepit of deductions and scaled withdrawals, make everyone pay the same proportion of their income, and cut expenditures until the revenues are equal to pay them.)

    The limit on firearms was reached in 1968. We don’t Need additional restrictions. The mess on the Mexican border is going on with weapons that aren’t legal for sale in the U.S.-there are no places I could, for instance, buy a live hand-grenade, and without special tax-stamps and a Class-3 firearms license, I can’t go out and buy an AK-47 in military trim, or any other full-automatic military-grade weapon.

    Class-3 licenses are hard to get unless you’re a Hollywood Film-maker.


    People want more laws-laws they think will affect their neighbours but not themselves, and they want more things from government that they don’t want to pay for, and they want Government to bail them out when they get themselves into trouble by borrowing more than they will EVER be able to pay, or when they loan money to someone who won’t be able to pay…knowing that the person they loaned to won’t be able to pay.

    People demanding taxpayer-subsidized health-care, people demanding high-paying jobs without learning to do the work, or without being willing to confront incompetence in their local schools that turn out kids who can’t read, add, or balance a chequebook (but feel wonderful about themselves right up until the day after graduation when they discover the only thing they’re actually ready to do, is fill out paperwork at the welfare office or scrape the grill at McFastfoods.)

    We’ve had thirty plus years of teaching people that there aren’t consequences to their actions, and now, we have a nation that wants mommy, and refuses to grow up and DO SOMETHING.

    WE’ve got what WE as a collective, asked for- a government that is willing to be both Mommy, and Daddy-indulgent parents so that the Boomers and the Post-Boomers can sit on their asses in front of the Teevee and feel good about themselves a while longer, as the Nanny State “keeps them safe” from their own irresponsibility, laziness, helplessness, and incompetence.

  • Cindy

    I believe that government’s primary responsibility is to…

    See Cannon, right there is the problem. You’ll just have to duke it out with all the other people who start the sentence like that and then put things you don’t like after it. And, I’m afraid you’ll be doing that forever.

    A friend of mine became very involved in her town. They meet, they decide things, they convince the mayor. I asked her why they need the mayor. The mayor is getting in the way. They can decide whatever they need. She agreed…but, she won’t let go of the idea they need the mayor. She doesn’t have any valid reason, but she thinks they need the mayor anyway.

    There’s nothing that people can’t do better than some figurehead or representative can do. And everyone would have a say without these people in the way doing whatever they want and pandering to whatever groups help them personally. You could stop fighting and get more of what you want.

    My friend and her town committee decide on the budget expenditures etc. They’re just ordinary people who got sick of how things were being run. They got rid of the old mayor and got one who cooperates. They’re making improvements and spending less and getting what they actually want done.

  • Perhaps no one saw the latest from Ryanair. CEO Michael O’Leary stated that they are considering putting coin slots at the loo doors to charge for their use. I didn’t pull that bit out of my, uh – head. Gotta keep current folks.


  • Dave,

    My #41. Yeah, I did go off. But you’ve all come to know me. I like going off. It’s fun and, sometimes I even get across a point or two.

    “If you read the founding fathers they believed that the militia consisted of all able-bodied adult males who could potentially enter into armed service. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?”

    I think you infer a lot. A great deal is certainly “inferred” from single line in the Constitution.

    We’ve danced this dance before. You believe that guns are essential to humanity. I believe the need to own guns as an anti-social and infantile.
    Never the twain shall meet.


  • Right now, according to a recent poll, Palin still leads the pack as the preferred leader of the Reps. If she is the best they can produce, it’s gonna be a long 8 years for ya’ll.

    Who’s second? Mike Huckabee. Woohoo!


  • Um,

    You guys are aware that 13 states already require permits and licenses for handguns, right?

    Some even…(gasp!) require a firearms safety or training course.

    Is it unreasonable to want to clamp down on things like the Iron Pipeline.

    “In a Brooklyn courtroom last month, a Columbia University professor delivered a lesson in why existing gun laws do not work. The professor, Dr. Howard Andrews, testified that 90 percent of the guns recovered in New York crime investigations from 1996 to 2000 had been bought out of state. A large number came from five states with lax gun laws: Virginia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

    You could basically go to some of these Southern gun shows, buy a corndog and 50 handguns from a private dealer with no background check. Then the guy could roll up I-95 and sell guns on Northern city streets at up to three times the price.

    How can that possibly make any sense to a rational person?


  • Cannonshop

    #51 And a lot of those crimes are a direct result of how those states are otherwise run…by the irresponsible assholes who live there. There wouldn’t BE your “iron pipeline” if the laws weren’t there, the laws wouldn’t be there if conditions didn’t make them politically viable-the conditions, in turn wouldn’t be there if the states and localities in question weren’t extremely corrupt…which in turn goes back to populations that are basically infantile and irresponsible, looking for a state or federal mommy and daddy to take care of their adult-baby asses.

  • Dead on Cobra. There’s something very wrong with the scenario you present. If New York allowed easier access to guns and concealed carry licenses there would be no motivation to go out of state, no need to sell guns illegally, no profit to be made from doing so, and more armed citizens deterring crime. You’ve hit the nail on the head. New York’s draconian gun laws are the problem.


  • Yeah, right!

  • STM

    Nalle: “New York’s draconian gun laws are the problem.”

    The old an-armed-society-is-a-police-society argument 🙂

    Geez, Dave, for a clever bloke, for what it’s worth – you worry me sometimes on this, especially with the hoary old arguments.

    Why can’t gun-loving Americans just admit that they like farting around with guns instead of banging on about rights.

    Luckily, I’m not there and I’ve realised what a waste of time it is to argue about the 2nd Amendment with Americans so disposed and hope that might see merit in an alternative point of view.

    But it is 2009, not 1799. There’s no way those revered founding fathers (who now seem to have almost God-like status, which would probably have them turning in their graves) could have realised that 2nd amendment would over time transform from enough muzzle loaders to keep the British away to 300 million modern firearms (and they’re only the legal ones) that have turned modern America into a giant, real-life shooting gallery with the highest rate of gun homicide by far in the developed world.

    Wasn’t it the founding fathers themselves who warned that they couldn’t have got everything right, and hoped future generations of Americans would be clever enough to change the constitution as they saw fit.

    It’s a piece of paper, for God’s sake, for men and written by men living in a different world 200 years ago, not the Holy Grail, for f.ck’s sake.

    As for Doc’s views, he’s right … you only have to glance sideways at an American’s gun cabinet and it’s portrayed as the end of human rights as we know them.

    I’m all for guns. I grew up around them and have had occasion to use them up in the bush. Shooting’s an Olympic sport and legit pastime. People should be allowed to own them, especially if they live in rural areas, and the access shouldn’t be infringed … but unfettered, uncontrolled access to them is a different thing altogether and is a particularly American form of madness that on this one issue, whether you care about it or not, has you looking like a pack of complete tits to most of the rest of the civilised world.

    I mean, seriously, who really needs an AK-47, an SKS with a folding “stick a capitalist running dog” bayonet or a pump-action 12-gage shottie sitting in a cupboard of the average suburban home?

    Seriously, what’s the point?

    And give me a cogent argument, not bollocks.

  • STM,

    I think it’s Fruedian. There’s probably something subconsciously alluring to some men–holding a dark, hard, cylindrical tool in their hands; cocked, fully loaded and ready to shoot on demand. They always seem to want bigger, larger capacity clips, and high grain ammunition for deeper penetration…

    But anyway…

    So you guys don’t think background checks, permits or any extra requirements or scrutiny should be required at these gun shows?

    “If we can save up about $200 real quick…we can go to the next gun show and find a private dealer and buy ourselves some bad-ass AB-10 machine pistols.”

    – Columbine killer Eric Harris, who was 17 years old at the time


  • B-tone @ #50:

    Yeah, but if you think about it – who else do the Dems have?

    Assuming Obama serves two terms, Biden would be too old – if the party would even seriously consider him anyway. So would Hillary, really.

    Obama’s other serious rivals during the recent campaign were… um… er…

    …but of course there are other up-and-coming young Democrats like… um… er…

    Oh fuck it. Colbert for president.

  • Stan, I could lay out facts demonstrating the desirability of gun ownership all day long. Prof. John Lott has already done all the work for me and I can just go get it off his web page.

    But that’s not what really maters to me. For me it’s a matter of rights. People have a right to self-defense against criminals and against tyrannical government. Before you trot out the argument that I either need to demand a nuke or might as well give up because I’ll be outgunned, that doesn’t matter. It’s a right. It’s not a guarantee of equal firepower. It’s just a recognition that part of taking responsibility for your existence in a free society is taking responsibility for self-defense and even for the eventual overthrow of government when it no longer serves the people.

    It also doesn’t matter that I’ll likely never need an AK-47. If I want to buy one on the very long shot that civilization will fall apart and I’ll need to defend my chickens against CHUDs or ravening alien wombatoids, I’ve got a right to prepare myself for that unlikely eventuality.

    It follows the basic pattern of other rights. If I want to do it and it doesn’t directly harm anyone else so long as I do it responsibly, then the government should not have any grounds for interfering with me and what I want to do.

    In America owning guns is a symbol of the autonomy of the individual. Take away the symbol and you’re declaring that you’re going to take away that freedom as well.


  • Dave, that argument is simply a combination of drivel and self-serving bollocks!

    There is a defence against criminals and it’s called the police. The fact that your police are not very good, despite having a larger proportion of the population in jail than almost every other country that isn’t actually a dictatorship, doesn’t mean that the entire citizenry should be armed. It didn’t work in the Cowboy era and it isn’t going to work now.

    Your other argument, about needing a defence against a tyrannical government, is equally deluded. The image of you holed up in your little walled compound trying to hold off the state guard or the federal army is simply too funny!

    Even if we were to bend over backwards to be fair and concede that it might be a theoretical right for you to own an anti-personnel weapon, the reality is that most people don’t have the judgement or experience to know the difference between a police action and a revolution. Just pop down the road to Waco if you want a reminder.

    Heck, you can’t even summon the self control to stay within the comments policy here, so why should anyone think you could be trusted with weapons?

    In an interconnected world, which is what we actually have and could not survive without, a “symbol of autonomy” is at best a mental fig leaf extremists like you hold on to like a comfort blanket.

    Even if you could be trusted to own assault weapons, which is debatable, many other people couldn’t. Couple that with a punishment system which is so barbaric and brutal as to more resemble a pycho killer production line than a correctional programme and you have a recipe for slaughter which the wide availability of heavy weapons is only exacerbating.

    Finally, if you are really concerned with personal freedom rather than the red herring of weapons ownership, there are many so many more important issues facing the land of the not so free, which is becoming one of the most legalistic and restrictive countries in the west.

  • Cindy


    It’s time to get the plumbing in the guest house fixed. I’m coming out for my training in overthrowing the tyrannical government.

    (hope you were joking about the ravening alien wombatoids–I’d hate to be abducted…again)

  • Dave, that argument is simply a combination of drivel and self-serving bollocks!

    In a free society we have the right to indulge in self-serving bollocks and to think that it’s actually something kind of important.

    There is a defence against criminals and it’s called the police.

    Now there’s some bollocks. Even there in the UK your police provide no defense against criminals. That’s not what the police do. They arrest criminals after the fact, both in our country and yours. They cannot sense crimes in advance, psychically appear at your home before a crime is committed, or follow you everywhere you go to safeguard your person. Your claim that they are a defense against criminals is laughable.

    Your other argument, about needing a defence against a tyrannical government, is equally deluded. The image of you holed up in your little walled compound trying to hold off the state guard or the federal army is simply too funny!

    Actually, I’d expect the state national guard to be on my side, dealing with larger threats while I protected my property and family in a time of anarchy. I don’t know how things might work out in a time of societal breakdown, but I do know that without guns one option is taken away from me.

    most people don’t have the judgement or experience to know the difference between a police action and a revolution. Just pop down the road to Waco if you want a reminder.

    Wow, this shows such a fundamental disconnect with reality that I can’t even begin to respond.

    Heck, you can’t even summon the self control to stay within the comments policy here, so why should anyone think you could be trusted with weapons?

    Apples and oranges. The motivation and importance of staying within the comments policy is in no way comparable to the responsibilities of gun ownership.

    Even if you could be trusted to own assault weapons, which is debatable, many other people couldn’t. Couple that with a punishment system which is so barbaric and brutal as to more resemble a pycho killer production line than a correctional programme and you have a recipe for slaughter which the wide availability of heavy weapons is only exacerbating.

    You’re so mired in cultural elitism and prejudice that you’re really not qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

    Finally, if you are really concerned with personal freedom rather than the red herring of weapons ownership, there are many so many more important issues facing the land of the not so free, which is becoming one of the most legalistic and restrictive countries in the west.

    Again, logical fallacy. Just because there are other issues that also need to be addressed, that does not mean that we should roll over on the issue of gun rights.


  • M a rk

    …or Dave could have said: “You leave my self-serving ballocks out of this!”

  • No, Dave, what’s laughable is your ideological commitment to a policy that can never work. The fact that you are so committed to a point of principle rather than the pragmatism of reality is, well, just a bit pathetic really.

    In brief, as discussing this with you is about as productive as discussing religion with a faithist,

    1. You do indeed have the right to indulge in self-serving bollocks, and you frequently do, but that doesn’t mean you are right;

    2. I didn’t say a perfect defence and the fact that the police are not currently practising pre-emptive policing is probably a blessing – it didn’t work in Iraq or the movie Minority Report, and it can never work – however police patrols in communities are a deterrent and a deterrent is a defence;

    3. If the State National Guard was mobilised to protect the Texan public, they would be a professional army and wouldn’t want an amateur of your age getting in the way. As there is no sign of this “societal breakdown” you refer to, we can presumably attribute this to your latent desire to join a militia in one of those distant northern states like Montana.

    4. You appear to believe that most people do have the judgement or experience to know the difference between a police action and a revolution, but I’d like to know the basis for that naively optimistic view.

    5. You try to brush off the issue of personal self control, which is odd when you give such lip service to the notion of personal responsibility. If you can’t do it right in a small way, why should we expect you to get it right when the stakes are higher?

    6. I love the way you attempt to rob me of my fundamental right to my opinions in the way you do, but isn’t that exactly the elitism you so evidently feel but are projecting on to me?

    If you are unaware of the large scale and routine ongoing brutality and brutalisation that is happening in the overblown US prison system and the kind of people those institutions are producing, you really have no idea what is going on in the US penal system, so maybe it is you that should not be opining on the subject.

    At the very least, your inability to apprehend or track reality accurately does call into question the wisdom of letting you have certain weapons. You are going to find it next to impossible to make the case for me being an elitist, whereas you ape that perspective on a daily basis for all to see.

    7. It isn’t a logical fallacy to say that there are more important issues facing the USA than gun control, it is a fact. Are you saying that gun control is the number one issue in the USA today?

    Mark, what the bollocks are ballocks? Now, if you’d said Ballacks, I would have known you meant that ageing and over-rated German footballer that “plays” for the similarly over-rated Chelsea!

  • Doug Hunter

    “The fact that you are so committed to a point of principle rather than the pragmatism of reality”

    What is the ‘reality’ of which you speak? What is the goal of life. To insure the most quality? …. the most quantity?.. the fairest?… the most free?.. the easiest?

    You are an elitist because, like all leftists, you choose your values and try and force them on others through the power of the government. You think you know better.. and you don’t.

  • Doug, if you don’t know what reality is, I can’t really help you there. There is no goal of life though, unless you are referring to that most basic of impulses, to survive. I don’t really do philosophy, so can’t help you with your other questions.

    I don’t know where you’re getting your information from (except possibly the same place as Dave does, which is that tightly sealed box he calls his brain), but I’m neither a leftist nor a rightist; I tend to favour small government whenever possible; and, unlike you and Dave, two people who seem to have no problem with either leaping to conclusions or simply making stuff up, I don’t go around thinking I know better. On the other hand, and again unlike you two, I do know how to think…

  • Christopher,

    Excellent posts, my friend. I just laugh at the hypocrisy of it all. I’ve heard Dave argue for National ID cards for all citizens to allow them to vote. That means National Registration of citizens. I’ve heard conservatives defend warrantless wiretapping and illegal search and seizures from the Patriot Act. To me, it seems like they don’t care about any Amendments save their interpretation of the 2nd, so long as it’s a Republican Administration in charge at the time.

    Besides, I’d bet most of these guys couldn’t pop a balloon at a carnival under pressure, much less “defend themselves” against a criminal.


  • Doug, it’s ultimately pointless to debate this issue with Chris Rose. He lacks a basic commonality of context with Americans and is incapable of trying to look at things from a different perspective than his own. It’s interesting. I find this a lot in Europeans who live in Europe, but those I know who move to the US change over to a more open-minded and realistic perspective once they’ve been here a little while.

    I’ve heard Dave argue for National ID cards for all citizens to allow them to vote. That means National Registration of citizens.

    You have? Where? I’ve written multiple articles on BC arguing against a national ID system. What I’ve advocated (in one comment) was requiring a state-government issued photo ID of some sort when you vote. Hardly the same thing.

    I’ve heard conservatives defend warrantless wiretapping and illegal search and seizures from the Patriot Act.

    Have you seen me defend them? No. There are some people who I would describe as “security” conservatives who place issues of national security above some rights. I’m not with them, but I do understand them.


  • Cindy

    Hrmmmm Cobra? Are you European too? 🙂

  • You should bear in mind, however, that Alexis de Tocqueville’s analysis was one of the most astute for the time – precisely because he was an outsider. You’re right, however, that in many cases, the so-called “commonality of context” is missing. Whether it’s true of Chris I am in no position to tell. But as an interesting aside, the same may be true of some Americans who have settled in Europe – Diana Hartman, for example, on the Culture thread. I’d regard her view of Americans somewhat skewed precisely because she happens to live in an emigre community

  • STM

    Dave writes: “(rosey is) incapable of trying to look at things from a different perspective than his own”.

    Geez, Dave, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black??

    Rosey’s right … he’s entitled to his opinion, and being opposed to the unfettered ownership of firearms isn’t that unusual in America, either.

    This is the problem: one amendment gives you the right to free speech, but if you don’t like what the second amendment says, you’re un-American.

    I don’t buy it either, nor any of the arguments you’ve proposed above. I still think it’s a load of bollocks that goes completely against what appears to be the original intent of the now 200-year-old 2nd amendment.

    Rosey probably also has a fair knowledge of guns (and I’d imagine he knows very well what they can do in the wrong hands), since he used to cart one around for a living.

  • Cindy,

    I’m not European, but I love Gyros, Croissants and German Ale.

    Dave writes:

    “What I’ve advocated (in one comment) was requiring a state-government issued photo ID of some sort when you vote. Hardly the same thing.

    So to vote in an election, you want a state-government issued photo ID, which is “registration”, but to request the same exact thing before buying hand guns or assault rifles is the end of civilization as we know it?

    Do you know how that sounds when you say it out, Dave?


  • STM

    Cobra, what’s a bloody Gyro??

  • Dave seems to have completely lost what command of English he had, so I’ve fixed his errors for him…

    “Doug, it’s ultimately pointless to debate this issue with Chris Rose with me. He I lacks a basic commonality of context with Americans people and is am incapable of trying to look at things from a different perspective than his my own. It’s interesting. I find this a lot in Europeans Americans who live in Europe the USA, but those I know who move to the US Europe change over to a more open-minded and realistic perspective once they’ve been here there a little while.”

  • “You are an elitist because, like all leftists, you choose your values and try and force them on others through the power of the government. You think you know better.. and you don’t.”

    Yeah, that sounds nothing like people on the right.

  • Cindy


    You haven’t lived until you’ve had a gyro.* It’s Greek.

    *They’d probably love these in Australia, just throw some beets on top.

  • Clavos

    ^I recommend maintaining a mail drop address, for the times a government agency demands an address.

  • STM

    Ah, yes, it’s a lamb/chicken/beef kebab!! Right, now I get it.

    I love ’em too, then … just the funny Greek-American name that got me.

    We call them “Yeeros” here when they’re made by Greeks, rather than Turks – although despite there being far more Greeks here than Turks, now everyone just calls ’em kebabs as a generic name.

  • STM

    And the Lebanese in Australia have another name for them – shwarma.

  • Cindy

    “Yeeros” would be the pronunciation of Gyro. But here they say it as it’s spelled.

    My niece went to Greece and she says they have taken to pronouncing it the American way.

  • Cindy

    At least to American toursists.

  • In Britain, a ‘Gyro’ used to be an unemployment check. (Not spelled that way, though.)

    The really unforgiveable thing about Dave is that he’s actually lived in Europe, so he really shouldn’t have the narrow outlook he projects on BC.

    And he probably doesn’t. He’s just messing with everybody’s heads.

  • I only mess with the lipid stuffed heads, Dr. D.

    And Cobra, give me a break. Checking an ID to vote is considerably LESS than the current requirement to show ID and pass a background check for a gun. Your ignorance is showing.

    And CR. Very mature with the rewriting there. I’ll say it again. I believe in freedom. That includes the freedom to own a gun and defend my home, pets, family and interests. Even if there’s a one-in-a-million chance I’ll need a gun, I’d rather have it and not need it than not have it and need it. It’s just common sense.


  • Well, Dave, if it is common sense to protect oneself, you may want to consider that googling the subject reveals that homicide is still only responsible for only 0.7% of deaths, so there are far more other things to worry about. That’s just common sense…

    I believe in freedom too, including the freedom not to have to worry about the possibility of some paranoid berk losing it wherever I go.

    Glad you liked the re-writing though, I learned that trick from Clavos, who is, physically at least, more mature than either of us. Be sure to let him know you disapprove!

  • Actually, thinking about it, the freedom to go around one’s country safely is pretty fundamental and on that basis the USA has a long way to go before living up to its marketing slogan “home of the free”!

  • Cindy

    I remember reading about some tribal culture, whose name escapes me, in Papua New Guinea probably. The men from different tribes would wage war on each other. They would make themselves up in preparation (their make-up sort of reminded me of Robert Smith on stage, only way more detailed, designed and colorful) They had all these feathers and fancy war-wear and hair styles. Then they would go out and fight–with arrows, I think.

    The funny part was, if it rained, the war was called off. None of them wanted to mess up their fancy make-up and hairdos. (It seems.)

    It would make a good sign to leave for posterity, I think: “War canceled on account of rain.”

  • Cindy

    marketing slogan

    I couldn’t think of a better description for what “home of the free” is in the U.S.

  • Cindy

    As far as I’ve looked there isn’t any other animal, or even culture that utterly destroys or even tries to destroy its opponent, except “civilized humans”. Funny name for people like that.

  • Cindy

    Well, all of that is in the wrong thread. But, that’s probably good. That thread is annoying with all the warmongers in it.

  • Even if there’s a one-in-a-million chance I’ll need a gun, I’d rather have it and not need it than not have it and need it. It’s just common sense.

    A bit like keeping that tinfoil hat handy on the million-to-one chance the NSA might try to read your brainwaves?

  • It would make a good sign to leave for posterity, I think: “War canceled on account of rain.”

    Reminds me of that old peace slogan: ‘What if they gave a war and nobody came?’

  • BlueBonnie

    I am guessing that everyone here is a believer in democracy huh? Ask me why I’m not.

  • Cindy

    It depends what you mean by Democracy. The opinion varies.

    Why are you not a believer Bonnie?

  • BlueBonnie

    Democracy…”majority rule” as you called it. It’s the belief that right and wrong can be determined based on what is popular. Basically the majority is saying: “Their are more of us, that makes us right.”

  • Cindy

    That sounds like what the author of the article believes. Are you a Libertarian?

  • BlueBonnie

    No. But I do know that what is popular is not always right. Do you disagree?

  • Cindy

    Nope. I don’t disagree.

  • Cindy

    So, then, who decides what’s right?

  • STM

    BlueBonnie, stop splitting hairs. This crap is a nonsense.

    Whenever the term democracy is used in common usage discussion today, it is isn’t meant in the ancient Greek sense – it’s meant in the modern sense: that is, representative government, whether that’s a a respresentative republic like the US or a representative constitutional monarchy like Canada, Australia or Britain.

    I have heard Americans – usually supporters of unfettered gun rights – describe democracy as being like two wolves and a sheep arguing about what’s for dinner.

    The other side of the coin, especially when it comes to issues like gun rights, might be two frightened sheep and a hungry wolf with very sharp teeth arguing about why the majority don’t have any more rights to decide about dinner than the minority.

    Using the old meaning of democracy in discussions about modern America is a crock. Spare us the bollocks.

  • BlueBonnie

    The idea is that it be a unanimous decision. Murder(no thought required)=wrong. Defending yourself and your family(no thought here either)=right. Stealing(no thought…I sense a pattern)=wrong. Rape(ditto)=wrong. Lying(this one is odd)=wrong, unless you are lying to government, in which case it is illegal. Common sense tells us what is wrong or right. The majority tells us what they want us to do or not do. Good men and women do not need laws. Criminals don’t obey laws. What is the point of making a law that good people don’t need, and bad people don’t respect?

  • Cindy

    Okay. So far I like it.

  • BlueBonnie

    STM…was there a valid arguement in there? I am assuming you agree with majority rule. That’s a wonderful idea if you are in the majority. And you can keep your bollocks.

  • Cindy

    You believe in consensus. With government?

  • BlueBonnie

    By the way STM…even in modern terms it is still majority rule. More representatives for one than there are for the other does not make it otherwise. My point is this. What do you do when the majority favors something that is not right?

  • BlueBonnie

    Cindy. In a trial, for a conviction to be made, does this require a unanimous decision? Will 7/12 in favor of guilty convict?

  • Cindy


  • Cindy

    That was to your 2nd question.

  • BlueBonnie

    But the problem is this. In the cases where people cannot agree, such as gun rights, it is not a case of right and wrong. It is a case of my will over your will.

  • Cindy


  • STM

    Dave: ” follows the basic pattern of other rights. If I want to do it and it doesn’t directly harm anyone else so long as I do it responsibly”.

    The problem is, it isn’t done responsibly a lot of the time, and if you can’t make the leap between the proliferation of guns in America and the highest rate of gun homicide in the developed world, I know that you crap on this issue.

    You know as well as I do there’s a very strong link, but you’ve got your ideological position and you won’t budge because it suits you – truth is, and you and I know it, you just like farting about with guns. You’ve told me that before, Dave.

    As for tyrannical government. What a joke. This is the US we’re talking about, not Idi Amin’s Uganda.

    Also, when it comes to rights, very few people have been killed, for instance, by the right to free assembly.

    Those who have in recent times were, ah, shot … remember Kent State?

  • BlueBonnie

    The main goal of any majority rule is simple. The will of the majority becomes law. Because it is popular, it is right. That is democracy. When enough people believe the same thing, they become the majority and their opinion becomes fact. This may seem overly simplistic, but it is the foundation od democracy. I do not belittle or attack anyone over their opinions, and I do not claim to know of a better way. But I do know that this is a flaw that noone can honestly disagree with.

  • Cindy

    I don’t disagree with that Really. I don’t.

  • Cindy

    So how do you arrive at consensus with government?

  • Dave writes:

    “Checking an ID to vote is considerably LESS than the current requirement to show ID and pass a background check for a gun. Your ignorance is showing.”

    No, my brother…you need to listen to the Gun Rights folks on that…

    February 4, 2009

    “One day after it was killed, then revived, the so-called “gun show loophole” bill was officially shot down by the state Senate.

    The bill would have required private dealers at a gun show to conduct criminal checks on individuals purchasing weapons before completing transactions.

    The legislation, SB1257, was defeated today on a 19-21 vote.

    Under current law, licensed gun dealers are required to conduct background checks; private sellers are not.”

    Come on, Dave. That one was too easy.


  • STM

    BlueBonnie asks: “What do you do when the majority favors something that is not right?”

    What’s not right according to whom? That’s a very subjective thing, isn’t it.

    My experience of living in one of the world’s great modern democracies is this: it’s swings and roundabouts stuff.

    If I don’t like the decisions made by the government of the time, thanks to the freedoms guaranteed by rule of law, I accept it knowing that myself and a lot of other people get the chance to make some changes a few years down the track at the next election.

    In reality, it is actually rule of law that most represents the meaning of democracy in the modern sense.

    Without it, there is no real freedom (unless you’re a poster girl for anarchy like Cindy, which I don’t believe is freedom at all). That’s why many countries in South America and Africa have been run for much of the time by tinpot dictators – no rule of law, and no respect for it.

    BTW, Nazism, Stalinism and Ba’athism were classic examples of what happens when you have rule of dictatorship rather than rule of law and genuine representative – that being the key word – majority rule.

    This is NOT happening in America. American democracy IS rule of law.

    You either accept the process, or you don’t. I believe in it, no matter how flawed it might be, especially after seeing some of the alternatives first hand.

  • Cindy

    I’m on the edge of my seat Stan. She’s going to keep me guessing lol.

  • BlueBonnie

    Sadly Cindy…you don’t. It will always be a battle of wills. In the end it is usually the stronger will that prevails. Even if it is wrong.

  • Cindy

    Okay. That sounds right to me. No government.

    The only thing sad about it is there is one.

  • BlueBonnie

    Cindy. In a perfect world we would have no government. People would be peaceful and noone would steal, kill, starve or die. Unfortunately this is not the case. Government is put in place by the people to protect the people. When the government sways from that purpose it no longer serves the people. A government that intends to serve itself with no regard for the people is a bad form of government. How do you stop this? STM…feel free to chime in here.

  • Cindy

    Government is put in place by the people to protect the people.‘s property.

    The people can protect themselves. The government protects property. No private property, no need for government.

  • BlueBonnie

    Cindy. Do you believe that I am entitled to take what is yours?

  • BlueBonnie

    Your money…or your food perhaps?

  • Cindy

    In a free society, without private property, you wouldn’t need to take my food or money.

  • Cindy

    And if you treated me unfairly, the entire community would deal with you.

  • STM

    BB: “A government that intends to serve itself with no regard for the people is a bad form of government. How do you stop this?”

    Where is this happening right now. I can think of one place among many off the top of my head: Zimbabwe. Not really in America, even if you’re of the black armband view.

    Right now, no matter how much you feel about America’s flawed, faux democracy, which has taken power out of the hands of the people and given it to lobby groups, corporations and others with money, power and influence, rule of law means it can always be changed.

    Which I think is what’s happened recently. It’s not only a milestone because America elected a black president.

    It was a genuine people-power slap in the face for the Washington oligarchs too, who’ve run America like the old feudal lords of England did in the middle ages.

  • Cindy

    You know, I mean, if necessary. If you were a danger.

  • “Good laws lead to the making of better laws, bad laws bring about worse. As soon as men begin saying of the affairs of state ‘what does it matter to me?’ the state should be given up as lost.” — Rousseau


  • Cindy

    “All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.” -Noam Chomsky

  • BlueBonnie

    You are right…I wouldn’t need to. Since we are speaking hypothetically I will give you an example. My friends and I are lazy. We see you carrying food to wherever you would take it to eat it(no home as it is private property). We decide that our group can take your food since you are alone and it is easier than finding our own. You have noone nearby who can help you to defend yourself and we are easily able to take your food. Is that acceptable? Is it right?

  • BlueBonnie

    I do agree with you though Cindy. In a free society we would not have to worry about such things.In reality though, we both know there are plenty of people who do not wish to be peaceful.

  • Cindy

    LOL, you don’t think I can live in a home? That’s funny.

    Is it right, is it fair? Nope. Is it fair to be mugged in NYC?

    It almost sounds as if unrealistic expectations are being placed on Anarchism. As if, to choose it as preferable, it must solve all problems magically.

  • BlueBonnie

    STM. I did not ask you where it was happening. I asked how you stop a governemnt that does not care what the people say. A government that serves only itself. How do you stop that government?

  • Cindy

    That’s right. And a community needs protection. This is not the same as needing police.

  • BlueBonnie

    This is true Cindy. Unfortunately that is not the society we live in.

  • Cindy

    Yes, that is unfortunate.

  • BlueBonnie

    Dave: ” follows the basic pattern of other rights. If I want to do it and it doesn’t directly harm anyone else so long as I do it responsibly”.


    True. Alot of times people are irresponsible. You suggest that we criminalize everyone according to the actions of a few?

  • BlueBonnie

    Or do you simply suggest that we criminalize the object in question and absolve those irresponsible people of their crimes?

  • BlueBonnie

    This seems to be the popular belief. Without guns criminals wouldn’t kill people. Criminals would not commit armed robbery. No guns=no criminals. This sort of belief suggests a lack of understanding of the word “criminal”.

  • Cindy


    I’m off to bed. I’d like to say though, I had a great time chatting with you. And I hope you hang around. 🙂

  • Cindy, that you can quote a buffoon like Chomsky in response to a quote from Rousseau [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] makes me weep.

    Here’s another quote very appropriate to our current situation:

    “Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” – F. A. Hayek


  • BlueBonnie

    I will be around. I usually have something to say. I enjoyed chatting with you also. Goodnight.

  • Cindy

    lol Dave, I’ll take that as a compliment.

    nite nite 🙂

    (hands Dave a tissue)

  • BlueBonnie

    Dave. I agree that people often ask for things that they do not understand. I also agree that if those same people understood some of the things they ask for they would strangle themselves. How does calling Cindy delusional support your post? If she is unaware of something that she says would it not make better sense to show her the error in her opinion?

  • BB, you have to understand that some of us have past history of discussing some of these issues prior to this. Cindy maintains [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] that pure anarchism can work and that anarcho-socialism doesn’t inevitably turn into statist oppression.


  • BlueBonnie

    That may be true Dave, but, after so many discussions do you think she will change her mind?

  • BlueBonnie

    I have not been here long enough to understand all the opinions. I agree with most of the things that you have said. I understand that some people have an opinion that cannot be swayed by any fact. I also understand that you can never gain credibility by singling people out as delusional. If you present her with facts and she disregards them, chalk it up as a lost cause.

  • Cindy


    He himself is not swayed by facts. Besides, I don’t want to be chalked off by Dave. I sorta like Dave. It’s part of what makes me delusional. 🙂

    I predict you will get along well with Roger. You have a calm rationality he will appreciate.

  • STM

    BB: “I did not ask you where it was happening. I asked how you stop a governemnt that does not care what the people say. A government that serves only itself. How do you stop that government?”

    You had my answer. Rule of law is how you stop it happening, A robust democracy (in the modern sense, not the ancient Greek), a free press, an independent judiciary.

    I know where you’re headed BB … I’ve seen it before in relation to gun rights.

    My view: in a civilised society, citizens don’t NEED to own guns to convince governments of anything. If they want to own them, that’s a different thing, but not unfettered.

    Perhaps I’ve been spolit living Down Under, where the thing the government most fears is being removed from office at the next election, and where the citizens don’t fear much at all in relation to the government because they know they have the power to remove them.

    I don’t have any genuine fear that the government will take away my fundamental rights (and history proves me right, because the system we’ve inherited from Britain has guaranteed those rights since 1688, and many were also guaranteed before going back to the Magna Carta), because all those other factors are at play, even when I don’t like some of the things they’re doing.

    Perhaps that and my feeling of freedom here clouds my perception somewhat when discussing what goes on in America, where the truth about what constitutes genuine rights to me seems very liquid sometimes.

  • BlueBonnie

    I am glad to see that you can disagree with him and still have some sort of amicability with him. I obviously don’t agree or disagree with the idea of your being delusional. I don’t claim that Dave has all the facts, as noone does. I only hold forth the idea that, though the two of you disagree, that does not make either of your opinions less valid. However flawed one’s opinion may be, it is still their opinion. I tend to ATTEMPT to see each side to an arguement. In the case of this arguement I understand that the abundance of firearms in this country does make them a readily available tool in crime. This does not support the belief that banning firearms would reduce crime. Gun crime…maybe, but this would create a vacuum. Remove guns from the equation and you will see that void filled by a different object or tool. A criminal is a criminal regardless of the tools in their employ. A murderer WILL still be a murderer if all he uses is a knife or club. Also, the lack of tyranny does not preclude its possibility. Remove the peoples defence of said tyranny and you are welcoming it with open arms. Those who have the greater power tend to use it. It is all about balance. stack too much weight in favor of either side and disaster soon follows.

  • BlueBonnie

    STM. Do I need to own a gun to defend myself from criminals or tyrants that aren’t real? No…obviously. By owning a firearm I am prepared for the possibility that either should show their face. By removing these weapons from the hands of common citizens you would effectively remove their means of defence should they ever really NEED them. I have a fire extinguisher under my kitchen sink. Do I expect a fire? No, but, just in case! 🙂

  • BlueBonnie

    As far as machine guns…I don’t need one. If the threat I am facing is so great that I need the capability that a full auto has, chances are I won’t survive anyway. Would i get a kick out of firing one? Absolutely…and so would you!

  • STM

    I don’t much like guns because I’ve seen the damage they do but I don’t disagree with firearms ownership either. I grew up around guns like many Australians of my era. What I disagree with is unfettered access to all kinds of weapons and unrestricted ownership with no controls.

    I believe there are other rights involved … like the right not to have nutcases taking potshots at you with a semi-automatic rifle.

    My view on this doesn’t stop people owning firearms. It just adds some control into the mix and hopefully keeps certain types of weapons out the hands of lunatics.

    Since the federal government forced the states here to enforce controls on certain types of firearms, we haven’t had a mass shooting in the style of say, America’s Virginia Tech or Columbine massacres – and they were pretty common before that.

    No one needs weapons like an SKS, say, unless they’re in the Chinese Army.

    Control doesn’t mean infringing anyone’s rights to gun ownership. It just brings a touch of sanity to the table.

  • BlueBonnie

    On the subject of crime. To be a criminal is to be someone who breaks the law. Suggesting that a law banning firearms will disarm a criminal who by their very definition WILL break the law is absurd. The only way to remove firearms from the hands of criminals is for them to never have been concieved of in the first place. Since this is not possible, removing them from those who do not break the law is to criminalize everyone.

  • BlueBonnie

    Would you prefer lunatics with bolt action rifles? And you said I was splitting hairs. How many “bullets” does it take to kill a person? 1. The difference between a lunatic with a semi-auto and a lunatic with a bolt action or single shot is that the criminal without the semi-auto takes careful aim so as not to waste ammunition. I am sure that you will agree with me that anyone who is commited to killing someone will do it with whatever tool they have available. Yes?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I am sure that you will agree with me that anyone who is commited to killing someone will do it with whatever tool they have available. Yes?

    So why make it easier? Why not make the teeming hordes of murderers actually work for it? Kill their victim with a bottle opener or something…

  • BlueBonnie

    Then you run the risk of overwhelming bottle opener crimes. When does it become necessary to stop blaming the tools and start blaming the criminals? Should criminals and mentally unstable people have ANY weapons? No. They will get them if they try. I cannot buy a full auto firearm without a license, but, There are plenty of criminals in this country who have them. No license, no registration and, obviously, no background check. Like I said, it is a vacuum. Remove one from the equation and it will be filled by another. Why not create a law that says any crime commited using a firearm carry a mandatory death sentence?

  • BlueBonnie

    I do agree that it should be more difficult for criminals to arm themselves. But to start removing one type of weapon only leads to the eventual removal of all weapons.

  • STM

    Jordan, it’s not worth arguing with people like BB on gun rights. You know what it’s like in the US in regard to this stuff. They’ve got it all worked out and always know best.

    I’ll answer her on one point in regard to the silly pat comment about boltt-action rifles: since unfettered access to semi-automatic weapons and handguns was removed in Australia a decade ago, there hasn’t been a mass shooting – and prior to that, we had them all the time.

    That tells a story on its own.

  • STM

    BB: “Machine gun … Would i get a kick out of firing one? Absolutely…and so would you!”

    Lol. I’ve fired one quite a few times. Sorry to report, but didn’t get any special kick out of doing so.

  • I’ve fired an AK-47 (or something similar – can’t remember exactly). The firing mode was set to single-shot, but the sheer sensation of power in my hands was rather more alarming than anything else. I think my alarm would only have increased if I’d been firing on automatic.

  • Stan, we do have reasonable gun control here in the US now. We have a background check which makes sure people don’t have a criminal record or a record of mental illness, and we have appropriate restrictions on certain types of guns.

    Your claims about Australia not having mass shootings in the last 10 years are nice, but Australia has a small population relatively to the US and that’s not enough time to really tell if the restrictions had a positive influence.

    If you divide the US population by the Australian population and use that as a modifier of the time between mass shootings we have them quite infrequently relatively to population size. In the last 50 years we’ve had only 5 mass shootings in the US. That’s the equivalent of one shooting every 150 years in Australian terms.

    A better comparison might be Great Britain, which has had full-on gun control for more than 50 years. In the last 50 years they’ve had 2 mass shootings. Adjusted for the relative sizes of population that’s DOUBLE the number of mass shootings per capita of the United States.

    So the suggestion from that data would be that a more heavily armed society has fewer mass shootings than one with strong gun control laws.


  • STM

    Except it’s not true, any of it. Because the real issue here is the actual number of shootings.

    Once you’re getting the mathematicians involved, Dave, you know you’re in strife.

    That applies to everything from sporting results to election results … oh, and rubbery gun homicide figures.

  • STM,

    Just a question. A friend from England recently commented on almost nonexistent homicide rates there compared to the U.S. Any truth to that?

  • No, Stan. It’s just not a valid comparison unless you do the math. It’s not fair to compare the raw number of mass shootings in a population of 20 million vs. a population of 300 million.

    We could compare the number of mass shootings in a US state of comparable population with Australia. Perhaps Florida. 0 mass shootings in the last 50 years with the most liberal gun laws in the US. One less than Australia which already had more restrictive gun laws than Florida when the Port Arthur Massacre happened.


  • Is it because a population of this size is bound to be more heterogeneous, divisive, liable to contain “more nuts,” any of the above?

  • And what about a city like London, which, when it comes to size, density, the population and racial mix, is quite comparable to NY, isn’t it?

  • BlueBonnie

    STM. Do you know the percentage of “assault weapons” used in gun crimes in the U.S.? Assault weapons being semi-autos. 1.4%. Your arguement that semi-auto “assault weapons” are the scourge of the Earth doesn’t seem to be based on fact. At least not in the U.S. anyway.

  • Roger, it’s just math. There are 15 times as many Americans as there are Australians. So there should be roughly 15 times as many of any given crime.

    As for London vs. New York, I’ve spent time in both. There are neighborhoods in both where I wouldn’t get out of the car without being armed, but in both cities the vast majority of the neighborhoods are reasonably safe. And keep in mind that New York has gun restrictions as severe as London does. And for the record, London has about 1/3 the homicides NYC does, and in both cities the vast majority are committed without guns.


  • STM

    Roger: I wouldn’t say the UK has a non-existent homicide rate. London isn’t generally a dangerous city, but like Dave, there are neighbourhoods I wouldn’t walk around in at night. The interesting thing about London is that it has a huge multicultural mix, probably even more so than NYC. The UK never had a gun culture, although guns are reasonably common in rural areas. Most police officers in London, especially the bobbies on foot patrol, aren’t even armed. They do have special armed units, however.

    In Sydney, which is also one of the world’s most multicultural cities, there are a couple of areas where I wouldn’t walk around in the day, let alone at night, although generally this place is one of the world’s safest cities. That is about two, maybe three, small suburbs, or neighbourhoods, as they are called in the US.

    The police in Oz are armed in all States. Australia also has had more of a gun culture than the UK, and gun ownership has never been an unusual thing – even now. 40,000 new firearms have been registered in the largest state of New South Wales over the past four years, and almost everyone who lives in a rural area has a firearm of some description. However, there have always been controls – and our rate of gun homicide PER CAPITA (there you go, Dave) is about one fifth the rate of the US overall.

    I believe the UK rate overall PER CAPITA is even lower.

    The only thing that can be concluded from these figures is that there’s a correlation between the proliferation of firearms and the rate of gun homicide.

    The US, BTW, has the highest of any developed nation.

  • STM/Dave.

    The way I had it explained, it had less to do with gun ownership than the history of/comfort with violent behavior (almost as though a nationalistic trait) – i.e., the West, open frontiers, etc.

    Of course, guns were part of that, so to what extent one can make a clear delineation here is already problematic.

  • STM

    Lol. Roger, with respect, on that above comment – you aren’t the only American who lives in a vacuum when it comes to a basic understanding of world history and geography beyond what’s happened in the US.

    It’s just another American myth (and geez, there’s a few of ’em :).

    That argument also doesn’t explain the lack of a gun culture in Australia OR Britain.

    Think about it: Australia was a much harsher land to settle than America, it was also a penal colony, unbelievably violent after white settlement, and every bad arse, hard-arse in the British Empire (and there were plenty of those) who got caught was sent here for almost a century. The last convict transports only arrived here in the 1860s. It was doubly hard because of its geographical isolation both from Europe and the Americas. Australians might not be seen or see themselves as tough and comfortable with violence the way Americans see themselves a la Hollywood, but I can tell you many are – quietly, though, mostly, and in my view it’s not something anyone should really be proud of.

    On the British, despite how I might joke here in Oz about them being soft as a nation, it’s just that – a myth, because nothing could actually be further from the truth.

    What Americans forget (or just don’t know) is that while America was being settled and the west won, hundreds of thousands of Britons were sailing around the globe in wooden ships, capturing a quarter of the world’s territory at the point of gun and sword, and fighting and beating all comers – the French, the Spanish, the Russians, the Turks, the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch and even the fledgling US in the war of 1812 – in a constant series of conflicts dating from the turn of the 19th century through to the middle of the 20th century.

    In two world wars, they lost millions and virtually every Briton between the ages of 18 and 45 was mobilised for those conflicts.

    I’d hardly say – in their case in particular – that there was a lack of comfort with violence. They’ve based their entire national identity on war and violence. If you ever get to London, take a walk through the place and see how many memorials there are to wars and conflicts, and see places like Whitehall and the Admiralty, the 19th century equivalents of the pentagon.

    The largest buildings in 19th century London were devoted to Britain’s endless wars. They’re still imposing today, and you can still feel the power when you walk around the place.

    Living in Britain in the 19th century was no picnic, either. It was a violent place and day-to-day life was a struggle to survive.

    The truth is, there just wasn’t – and isn’t – the kind of gun culture in Britain that has crept over into modern America.

    Same here, although most Aussies of my generation and earlier grew up around guns.

    But I guess when it boils down to it, most of us just don’t feel the need to keep a gun in the cupboard.

    Really, gun culture is the bottom line. The US and its citizens accept a society awash with firearms, other places don’t.

  • STM,

    Well, it is a good thing than an innocent little question can evoke such a thorough response. So it is then, in your opinion, mostly a matter of “gun culture,” plain and simple. And of ready availability of guns to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

    But isn’t the “Wild West” experience kind of unique – paving the way, so to speak, to taking the law into your own hands? It’s that kind of violence, at that level, I think now that I was referring to.

    Your thoughts?

  • Cindy

    Isn’t there something about Canadians owning lots of guns but not using hem to kill everyone?

  • Jordan,

    Are you listening? You should know.

  • A number of other countries are reasonably close to the US as far as gun ownership. Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, France and Austria all have pretty high levels. Most of them only differ from the US in that they require registration rather than just a background check, but they let you keep whatever guns you like in your home. And some of them – Switzerland and Finland in particular allow you to keep fully automatic weapons in your house, which isn’t normally allowed in the US.

    The other fact to consider is that the US doesn’t just have more gun crime, it has more violent crime in general than these other nations. So the problem isn’t the guns, it’s something else.

    And let’s add into that the fact that crime in the US has been declining rapidly in the last 2 decades while it has been rising in most of the other countries I mentioned and most of the rest of the world as well.

    Them’s the facts. What do they mean?


  • STM

    Roger asks: “But isn’t the “Wild West” experience kind of unique.”

    Roger … you need to read more.

    In answer: No, no and no. Among the newer-settled nations that have become great democracies, the “wild-west experience” is not unique to the United States.

    It was the same experience in Australia, perhaps even worse. Think about how lawless a place can get on those lawless inland frontiers when most of its people were lawless in the first place and were sent there as punishment for a whole range of crimes, including murder.

    Canada and New Zealand were pretty wild places too back in the 19th century.

    Also, I’d reckon the British were having their own wild-west experiences almost endlessly, all over the world, not just on the high seas. So there they were, imposing their will by gun and sword almost as a matter of course on the dusty frontiers of god knows where, but they went home and didn’t feel the need to continue it.

    It’s a myth, this business about guns and the acceptance of violence. My view: Much gun crime in America is caused by the divide between rich and poor and the proliferation of firearms, and when it comes to law-abiding Americans, the truth is they just like p.ssing about with guns.

  • Clavos

    My view: Much gun crime in America is caused by the divide between rich and poor and the proliferation of firearms, rampant US drug culture and the failure of past generations (especially among the underclasses) to raise their children responsibly and to inculcate standards of morality, respect for others and decency in them.

    There. Fixed it for ya, Stan.

  • STM,

    “Much gun crime in America is caused by the divide between rich and poor.”

    Could you elaborate, please. There’s more than one way of reading this, I think.

  • I don’t buy it. If the divide between rich and poor caused the gun culture, then why does it pervade all levels of society, why is the level of violence seemingly unrelated to the guns themselves, and why is most crime committed within one’s own social/ethnic/wealth sub-group?


  • STM

    Roger … “Much gun crime in America is caused by the divide between rich and poor”.

    Clav’s on the right track here (thanks for fixing it mate. thumbs up 🙂 … yes, it’s about people needing to commit crime because they get caught up in the cycle of poverty, crime and violence.

    If you grow up in a place where the choices are chump change flipping burgers or a fortune selling drugs and committing crimes, and you’ve got no hope in the first place, what are you going to choose.

    We know in theory anyone can become president, but the reality is some people can’t get out of the crime-ridden neighbourhoods they grow up in, and they can’t get out of the life of crime they grew up with.

    And Dave, I didn’t say the divide between rich and poor caused America’s gun culture. I said it led to gun crime. Easy availability of guns makes it simple for criminals to get ’em.

    The gun culture in the US is a direct result of the 2nd amendment.

    People like farting about with guns, because it’s easy and they know they can.

  • Turbo T

    the gun is no more responsible for crime than a keyboard is for spelling errors.

  • STM

    Geez, that’s a good, new one. Must put that one down in the gun-toters’ ready-made excuse save-string … although to be fair, it’s really just a modern, computer-age version of that hoary old chestnut: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

    Of course, it’s true too … except that a lot of the time, they’re people with guns.

  • BlueBonnie

    STM. Once again you blame all things for crime except the criminals who actually commit those crimes. Would you remove all objects which could be used to kill?

  • OK, here goes. I will begin this in all fairness by stating that Iam a gun loving member of the public. I most definitley cling to my guns and my Bible.

    My only real comment is that we will RARELY get a European to agree with us. Their freedoms, as we see them, are already gone. They have joined in what we as Americans fear the most. A great portion of the continent has given up their national identity for what most of us see as a socialist agenda. It’s not an argument that a member of the EU will understand. They have “moved past” that whole personal liberty, thing. They see it as evolution, and we see it as slavery.

    All we can do is keep our heads high and stand up for what we believe in. The best thing we could possibly do is attempt to take America out of world politics and tell the world to stay out of ours.

  • Turbo T

    Isn’t it amazing how simple the truth can be? Personal freedom requires personal responsibility. It’s fascinating to me to read the 12 people who write and respond on this blog with such self-aggrandizing drivel, droning on and on in weak pseudo-intellectual attempts to justify the fact they live their lives with no moral compass. My heart goes out to you!

  • BlueBonnie

    Turbo T. You would have me believe that my purchasing or possesing a semi-automatic firearm directly or even indirectly contributes to crime in this country or any other for that matter? Unless I supply criminals or become one myself, what responsibility do I have for anyone who commits a crime? I do not feel guilty for the actions of another. I will NEVER feel guilty for the actions of another. You can attribute that to lack of morals if you wish. I call it common sense. What the two of you are suggesting would be the same as placing all tax payers in prison because one of them refuses to pay. To ban one type of firearm because it is used in the commision of crime is like saying crimes commited using other types of firearms is peachy. It is only limited by the fact that it’s utter nonsense.

  • Turbo T

    I’m not certain how you have mistaken my comment on personal responsibility as in any way blaming all gun owners for the crimes of the few. In fact, your question, “What responsibility do I have for anyone who commits a crime?” only illustrates that you and I are on the same page on this one. I might even go a step further and say that I believe that because of the irresponsibility of others, you should have whatever firepower you believe necessary to protect yourself, your family and your property. Perhaps I stated my opinion too simply and directly? Maybe I should learn wax poetic.

  • I thought you were on the same page. That’s why I didn’t comment.

  • BlueBonnie

    Ah. My mistake. Disregard the post as pertaining to you then.

  • I have no stake in the gun issue per se. And if the Second Amendment is essentially about people protecting themselves against tyrannical government, I don’t have any major problem with that either. But it does say something about the kind of society we’re living in if individual citizens feel they needs guns to protect themselves and or their property from other citizens.

  • BlueBonnie

    It’s just a little difficult to understand the mind that thinks removing an object will destroy the criminal element. To follow this thought process would lead us from modern society, back into a primitive state, and have little effect on crime. Eventually we would be banning the use of closed hands(fists) and then removing hands completely. Tell me, please, when do we start removing the criminal element instead of just limiting the tools at their disposal?

  • The question I would ask: why so much criminal element in America? Are we, as a nation, prone to criminal behavior more so than others?

  • Turbo T

    I don’t own any weapons. I pray I won’t need any. I am feeling compelled by the need to protect against a tyrannical government. I also must admit that for the most part, I’m intrigued by your perspective.
    Fight the good fight! There’s whacko’s everywhere these days.

  • I indicated earlier, Turbo, that the Second Amendment seems OK by my, except I don’t know the circumstances which facilitated its passage. Nor do I have any problems with gun ownership. Technically speaking, if I recall it correctly, the U.S. laws are that the police do not have any inherent responsibility or duty to protect an individual person from another. So the onus is on the individual. But I still find it rather puzzling that after 250 or so years of our history as a nation, we continue to feel as though our lives and property were still in ever-present danger. And at the very least, it tells me we’ve got a long way to go to become a civil society.
    Not a very encouraging prospect, I should say.

  • BlueBonnie

    I believe that is directly linked to the amount of lazy people in this country. Not being required to work for something encourages the belief that everyone owes you something. Welfare for those who do not wish to do for themselves is a prime example of negative re-enforcement. Anyone who is dis-abled or trying to provide for themselves should be allowed to recieve help. Why support someone and reward them for being lazy? Why work for it when I can take it from you? It is personal freedom with a lack of personal responsibility. But collective responsibility should never be substituted for personal responsibility. When the support of these people stops they usually still hold this belief that it is not their responsibility to support themselves. They turn to the easiest means of support available. Taking what they are not entitled to.

  • I think that’s an oversimplification, Bonnie. Take organized crime, for example. These people were nothing but lazy. They just chose to engage in illegal activity because 1) there was money to be made and 2) perhaps because other avenues to success were not available to the Italians and other immigrant groups. The same thing with drug cartels or drug operations in the inner city or ghetto. You do what you can to succeed, because success is the American way. And they all bought it – lock, stock and barrel.

  • BlueBonnie

    In instances such as that the cause can be related directly to the lack of other means. These people(usually) would have chosen another means had it been available. However, once they had become wealthy enough to open other opportunities did these same people stray from crime as a means of betterment? Rarely. They had grown accustomed to the life. That shows a lack of personal responsibility.

  • Cindy

    Why work for it when I can take it from you?

    Exactly! Things would be much better if Capitalists would just give that idea up.

  • I mostly agree with Roger. You can’t really argue with the Second Amendment, or that there are a number of legitimate reasons for people to own and/or carry guns. (A fact which was not recognized by those who wrote the excessively harsh gun control legislation which was passed in my home country of Britain after the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres.)

    I can’t, however, help but think that the authors of the Second Amendment didn’t really appreciate what they were getting themselves into. Gun rights, in my book, are fine – gun proliferation is something else entirely. The person who keeps an Uzi and says it’s for home defense is like the person who owns a Hummer but never goes anywhere except to the office*: showy, unaltruistic and somewhat anti-social.

    * But might one day take it driving up the slopes of Mount Kilauea during an eruption**. Then they’ll be laughing.

    ** Which would be quite an achievement as they live in Rhode Island.

  • BlueBonnie

    Let me rephrase. This shows a lack of a SENSE of personal responsibility.

  • As I said, Doc, I’m not aware of the circumstances which had precipitated the passage. Be that as it may, I think the right kinds of questions ought to delve into the root causes of crime and the failure of the system to integrate a good portion of the population into legitimate and productive activities and lives. But it’s kind of late to be asking that now as we’re all going through a massive failure.

  • BlueBonnie

    Dr Dreadful. Do you have car insurance?

  • Yes, Bonnie, I do, but it’s not showy, unaltruistic, anti-social car insurance and the state says I have to have it!

  • BlueBonnie

    Do you use it everyday?

  • I’d say, Bonnie, it testifies to their pragmatism and common sense. You do what you can get away with – no more and no less. “Personal responsibility” is for suckers and designed by those who make the rules. (I’m being facetious of course, but only to a point.)

    Why should Al Capone and the like be judged any different than the barons of Wall Street who took America to the cleaners and for the most part escaped unscathed?

  • BlueBonnie

    Obviously you see where I am going. No, I am not trying to be a smart ass. My point is simple. Everyone needs some measure of protection, whether it be from criminals, tyrants or the occasional traffic collision. What measure of protection does anyone truely need? That depends on what you need protection from. Who is to say that those people who prefer to keep an Uzi won’t someday be the very people we rely on to battle tyranny?

  • I think I see where you’re going here, Bonnie. No, I don’t use it every day, but neither do I have $2,000,000 worth of it.

    Did you miss my first paragraph?

  • BlueBonnie

    Roger. I would not judge them any differently. All I ask is to be held responsible ONLY for what I have done.

  • Ah – clearly you hit Publish on your #205 while I was busy writing my #206…

  • Cindy

    I think the right kinds of questions ought to delve into the root causes of crime and the failure of the system to integrate a good portion of the population into legitimate and productive activities and lives.

    Coincidentally, the very point I have been addressing since I made your acquaintance.

  • #207: I don’t anyone is asking you to, Bonnie.

  • “think”

  • Which is more likely, though – that you’ll be called upon to protect your property from a burglar or that you’ll be called upon to resist a tyrant?

    Sadly, in the second instance, I don’t think it would make much odds what sort of gun you had. An Uzi would just prompt a sterner response.

    Think of the phenomenal level of gun proliferation there must have been in Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. It didn’t protect them from tyranny.

    Also, insurance isn’t really a viable analogy. Insurance is basically just a bet on whether you’ll have an accident. My car insurance won’t prevent me from crashing the damn thing – it will merely compensate me afterwards if I do.

  • STM

    I think bonnie does this for a job. Don’t get sucked in boys.

  • #209: I never said you didn’t have it in you.

  • STM

    And if Americans like Turbo and Bonnie genuinely feel threatened by a tyrannical government in America, clearly they’ve never been anywhere else and don’t have any concept of what counts for a tyrannical government.

  • I happen to think you’re right, Doc. The Second Amendment is a myth. It may have been viable years back. But given present police powers, the National Guard, whatever else the federal or the state government has at its disposal, the idea of citizenry defending itself has as much credibility as trying to make a stand in the Stalinist Russia.

  • Roger, you’re out of touch with reality. If it ever comes to resisting tyranny, in many of our communities the police and even the state national guard will be on our side. But they will also need armed citizens to take over some of their duties when they go to confront the tyrants. I know this idea of communities working together for their own protection is alien to many in the “blue” states, but down here in Texas it’s part of life.


  • The threat I fear, Dave – if I feel it at all – is not from an outside invader but the government itself. And that’s what the Second Amendment was supposed to address, am I not correct? So I don’t really see what part of the picture I’m missing.

  • BlueBonnie

    STM. What you obviously fail to realize is that Americans like Turbo and myself are the very reason we don’t know what real tyranny is. 233 years ago the European tyrants were handed their walking papers. To forget the past is to welcome it’s repeat. Could I stand before a superior force controled by Tyrants and win? Probably not. But trust me when I say I would do so and be proud that I did. All true Americans feel this way. You could take away my guns, but I will still feel this way. I would stand unarmed in the face of overwhelming odds. That 2nd amendment that you seem to feel is now so inappropriate is their to guarantee that I don’t have to stand empty handed.

  • STM

    Turbo, in regard to your earlier comment:

    First up, don’t be a patronising dick … I’m not European, although one of the people engaged in some earlier arguments was a British soldier so I’d say he’s got a fair idea of what he’s talking about when it comes to guns since he used to make a living carting one around.

    Like me, he lives in a robust democracy, a country where he feels he has no fear of the government, or what it might do – beyond bad decisions that can’t be undone by jumping up and down a lot, calling the newspapers or voting out the incumbents at the next election.

    Sticking an SKS in the cupboard doesn’t enter into the scheme of what we feel we might need to do to keep the government inline. A phone call to our local representative will do just as well, which kind of makes Turbo’s banging on about rights look a bit sick. Who’s got the most rights … those living in fear of their government, or those who aren’t?

    I live in a country where plenty of people own firearms, I grew up around them, have used them plenty and don’t really care whether people have them as long as they understand what they are about and what a serious responsibility ownership is – but since a number of mass shootings (including the world’s worst) the government a decade ago placed restrictions on the type of firearms you could own unless they were for specific purposes like belonging to a shooting club (handguns) or working on a farm (semi automatics).

    It hasn’t stopped anyone owning them – 40,000 new firearms have been registered in this state in the past few years.

    However, one statistic is telling: since the decision to ban certain types of weapons 10 years ago, there hasn’t been a mass shooting – and they were pretty regular.

    Outside the military or law enforcement, I see shooting as a legitimate pastime, and perhaps an occupational necessity if you need to shoot kangaroos on your property, for instance.

    Unfettered, uncontrolled gun ownership I don’t. You’re not allowed on the highway without a diriver’s licence, before first having proven yourself capable of being able to do so.

    Guns shouldn’t be any different. I’m speaking here from a position of first-hand experience of guns that you probably couldn’t understand even if I wanted to explain it to you, so I won’t bother.

    As for rights, don’t patronise me. There are no rights I don’t have that aren’t also in the US Bill of Rights, and that includes gun ownership – and I’ve got a few others besides … like the right not to be sacked arbitrarily, and the right to get sick and receive first-class medical treatment without going bankrupt and losing my house.

    And I suspect, as Cobra points out, most of you arguing so vehemently about modern firearms have never a) seen first hand exactly what they can do to the human body, and b) would struggle to hit a pink balloon at a carnival sideshow.

    Also Bonnie .. don’t bother replying. This is no place for a professional shill and tout.

    Your act is very polished and very nicely rehearsed, but it doesn’t fool me. It’s got the stink of gunpowder all over it.

    PS: Hope you guys all enjoy getting your federally-imposed gun licences over the next few years, cause that’s where you’tre going! Hope youse all qualify too, otherwise you’ll have to give up all your nice bang-bangs.

  • BlueBonnie

    Last sentence…*there*

  • STM

    BB: “233 years ago the European tyrants were handed their walking papers”.

    What a load of bollocks. Americans weren’t an oppressed nation as colonies under the British – far from it.

    Tax on tea? Lol. The revolution was more about a grab for power by the colonial elite who wanted to cement their money, power, prestige and influence. Strange that the power grab by the elites came in the wake of the King’s Bench ruling on slavery.

    Most colonists at the time didn’t even want a revolution, they just got caught up in it.

    History’s how you see it. You might see it one way, but I still view Americans of that period as murderous traitors to the Crown who started a needless war they couldn’t win on their own and needed to join forces with the nancy-boy French against their own kith and kin.

    Good job the ledger was squared in 1812.

    Unfortunately, the myth of American exceptionalism pervades, and it’s just that: a gross and dangerous myth that has many modern-day
    Americans totally deluded.

    Besides, IMO Americans aren’t free … you are the classic example bonnie, telling me that you need to guard against a tyrannical government.

    A people that lives in fear of its government isn’t a free people.

  • A good movie about gun culture, STM, “The Unforgiven” by Clint Eastwood. It dispels in its own way many common misconceptions – that’s is so easy, among other things, to take another’s life.
    Of course, “The High Noon” is a classic.

  • BlueBonnie

    STM. I think bothering to reply will suit me just fine. As far as federal licensing is concerned, the federal government(nor state or local) was never granted the power to require that I obtain a license. Passing a law requiring such is, therefore, nothing short of trivial. Since the federal government, in passing a law it has no power to pass, is making an “empty” law, I can and will disregard said law.

    PS. What makes you think we would give up our bang-bangs? Standing in the face of FALSE authority and saying come and get it is what we Americans were made for. I can see you steaming already…:)

  • BlueBonnie

    So STM. Your true feelings emerge. Murderous Traitors. Funny. Wasn’t Australia originally an English penal colony? Evidently the crown felt the same about you all as you do about us. How does that sit with you?

  • Bonnie,

    I really don’t believe all that crap about “Americans.” They’re “sheeple,” as Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage are used to saying. At least the NRA bunch. I’d more worry, if I were you, about the “underclass” and the working poor who are losing their jobs and means of livelihood. Now, that’s cause for concern.

  • BlueBonnie

    And as far as your claims to the effectiveness of the restrictions in Australia regarding semi-autos. It may have been quite effective. All that succeeds in proving is that Australians can’t be trusted with Semi-autos.

  • Stan @ #213: I think bonnie does this for a job. Don’t get sucked in boys.

    …and then proceeds to do just that!


  • BTW, house rule: first person to use the phrase ‘cold dead hands’ within two words in either direction of the phrase ‘pry them out of’ gets shot.

  • Cindy

    #209: I never said you didn’t have it in you.

    True. But, there are reasons I consciously make the choices I’ve made. And it is based on the answers to your questions. And there is a great deal more experience and understanding behind my choices than would be considered casually. (Not by you necessarily, mind you, but by anyone.)

  • #222: sensible view, STM – at least from the British perspective. It’s interesting how the Revolutionary or Independence War can still be viewed from all kinds of perspectives. It stands to reason that the colonial governments would be supported by the Crown. Goes to show how illusive this thing we call history is.

  • BlueBonnie

    Roger. I am one of those many who have lost their jobs. I am not receiving any government assitance however. I make it the best way that I can. And though it may appear otherwise, I do not do this professionally. I believe every bit of what I am saying. And no, STM, I do not revel in arguing with you. But, I will be damned if I will feel guilty about being an American or standing up for what I BELIEVE to be right.

  • #230: I wouldn’t dream otherwise.

  • Cindy

    “The Unforgiven”…is that the one where he ends up in the all girls’ school?

  • I don’t think, Bonnie, that STM asks any of us to apologize for anything. I’m certain he’d approve of anybody speaking their mind.

  • Cindy

    …the police and even the state national guard will be on our side. But they will also need armed citizens to take over some of their duties when they go to confront the tyrants.


    Weren’t we going to fight the tyrannical government, last I recall? Are the police and the national guard going to switch sides?

  • BlueBonnie

    Cindy. That depends on which government. State governments control their respective state guards, as well as their LE agencies. It all boils down to each persons personal feelings, whether they be federal, state or local military or LE.

  • Cindy


    All government.

  • BlueBonnie

    Dr. Dreadful. BTW, house rule: first person to use the phrase ‘cold dead hands’ within two words in either direction of the phrase ‘pry them out of’ gets shot.

    pry them out of-corpses-cold dead hands…:D

  • BlueBonnie

    In instances such as that Cindy, I believe you do what you believe is right and pray(or hope if you are not religious) that it is enough.

    STM. I do not suggest that Americans are well versed in what an actual tyrannical government is like, nor do I claim that Americans are alone in standing up to tyrany. I do not claim that everyone who uses the 2nd amendment as an arguement for the possesion of guns has noble intentions. What I believe is that all people everywhere desire the same thing. Freedom to be happy with their own lives. How those people go about safeguarding that freedom is entirely up to them. If it works for you, by all means, go for it. Whether you believe that the war in 1776 was a result of tyrany makes no difference to me. I, in my lifetime, will stand, alone if necessary, to secure those freedoms. Whether it is with an SKS or a single shot .22 makes no difference. When the war in 1776 was over, the foundation of the U.S.A. was laid down upon the principles of the people who fought and won that war. I share there beliefs that leaving the majority of power in the hands of the common people will ensure their freedom. Some will misuse this power. Power is a poison, some can resist it and others cannot. To allow someone, anyone, to remove the very tools you believe are required to guard those freedoms is to welcome the removal of freedom itself. Will the government ever become a tyrannical one? I don’t know. Would the banning of semi-autos lead to the banning of other weapons? I don’t know that either. All I know is that I am not taking that chance.

  • @ #239:


  • BlueBonnie

    You shot me in the foot! That’s pretty rude don’t you think? If you are going to shoot me make it count.

  • No, Cindy! It’s about William Munny, a natural-born killer who avenges a whore being cut up by a Mexican cowboy. Gene Hackman, Richard Harris and Morgan Freeman complete the case. Great movie with a moral.

  • “the cast”

  • Hey, I never claimed to be a good shot…

  • Cindy

    Ah, I think I am thinking of The Beguiled.

  • Try to get it through a video service if you’re snowed in. You’ll love it.

  • Cindy

    um, great shot there, Dr.D…

    (well, we know one person who we won’t be asking to help us over through the government)

  • Cindy

    throw even

  • I’m actually a pretty good shot.

    At any rate, I bet my shooting is better than your spelling!


  • Cindy

    ty Roger, I’m doing my homework

  • Colt 45 is my favorite, nice and snug. Better than a rifle.

  • BlueBonnie

    Roger. Are you refering to the firearm or the alcoholic beverage?

  • Cindy


  • Firearm, Bonnie. Never cared for malt liquor.

  • BlueBonnie

    Neither have I. As far as Colt .45’s are concerned, Springfield Armory makes a fine WW2 G.I. reproduction. I myself, however, prefer the Taurus .40 version of Beretta’s M9. To each his own I suppose.

  • A double-barrel, pump-actin shotgun is my next weapon of choice – army issue for guarding the stockade. They’re scary.

  • Cindy

    tosses a Molotov cocktail into the stockade

  • BlueBonnie

    Roger. Where about are you located?

  • Cindy

    Oh rats, I didn’t remember the stockade was where the prisoners are kept….

  • The threat I fear, Dave – if I feel it at all – is not from an outside invader but the government itself. And that’s what the Second Amendment was supposed to address, am I not correct? So I don’t really see what part of the picture I’m missing.

    Others have already touched on this, but right now the threat is from an out of control federal government much more than state and local government which are actually somewhat responsive to the people.


  • That’s wishful thinking, Dave. Wait till things get real nasty. Shall see then.

  • Besides, the threat you’re talking about is “theoretical,” affecting only the system – not the kinds of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But that’s not the direction that violence is going to come from. It will be the people who will feel they’ve been screwed by the system. That’s the kind of action I foresee in the near future. You may well need your gun because everyone’s going to be at risk.

  • Cindy


    I once posted to you what happened in Argentina when the entire economy collapsed in 2001. Unemployment was 20% and people living under the poverty line was over 50%. The elites moved money out of the country in armored truck in the dead of night.

    The people can stick together. Can you watch videos on your computer? If not now, you should consider watching what the people did.

  • That too, Roger. When the food riots start and the proles abandon the cities to assault the farmlands and small towns, then guns will be essential.

    And yes, worst case scenario, but what’s the boy scout motto?


  • Cindy


    That what all the elitists think. People can and do stick together.

  • Clavos

    Roger, if by “Colt .45” you mean the automatic (as opposed to the revolver), the problem with it is that it’s hard to hit anything smaller than the side of a barn at a range of more than six feet.

  • Cindy


    Iceland’s government was the first to collapse because of the economic crisis.

    Old ladies took to the streets and banged on buildings with pots and pans. The whole people revolted.

    Iceland’s economic crisis toppled the government and destroyed the conservative prime minister’s career yesterday when the entire cabinet resigned.

  • Cindy


    Consider this. As things progress, more information will become available to the general population. Information that one can only find now if one is looking, and diligently at that. And it’s all about what people are doing to take power. Successfully or unsuccessfully. But many successes. And there will be more.

    There isn’t a vacuum. It’s just not published information. Like the sex offenders under the bridge in Miami that Clav posted. But, there is information there and when people truly need it, it will be available.

  • No – just good ole revolver. And I’m a marksman with it. But why is everybody ganging up on me? I don’t want to see the doom and gloom. I just think that if nothing gives, it’ll happen. Sorry.

  • Cindy, this isn’t Argentina. I agree that people will stick together, but history has demonstrated that some communities stick together better than others. In particular the urban underclass does not have the sense of community unity and self-sufficiency it needs to survive and they will lash out and attack communities which do have a sense of unity and cooperation.


  • Turbo T

    Cindy from #197…
    Hey, I’m praying for you the most!
    Love, Turbo

  • I imagine the sides of barns are, as a group, strongly in favour of gun control. They always seem to come off worst.

  • In particular the urban underclass does not have the sense of community unity

    Isn’t that a tautology? Or is there an echo in here?

  • Dave, you’re wrong in one respect. When it comes to looting and pilferage, they’re very much together as urban riots have shown time and again.

  • BlueBonnie

    #275 Roger. Sad but true.

  • BlueBonnie

    This also brings about another question. In times such as urban riots where hordes of people run rampant, looting and beating people indiscriminantly, would that not be sufficient reason to justify semi-automatics as a legitimate tool for self defense? What sane mind would want to face down masses of rioters with a bolt-action rifle?

  • Clavos

    Riots, by definition, are not “together.”

    They are a mob, acting independently, with no leadership, and thus are easily defeated, if you’re not squeamish.

  • STM

    Or flies on dog’s arses. They cop it a bit too, in the firearms debate, especially in Australia.

    Hey bonnie, not a trick question: when did you lose your job, and has it been hard in the current climate to find something else. I hope life is not becoming a struggle and that you will come out of it as it’s unfair when these things are out of people’s control. We are just starting to feel the effects of it here, with the first job losses announced last week, so it’s a worry for everyone.

    BTW, I don’t ask you to apologise for being an American. I don’t think you have anything to apologise for. I regard Americans as my cousins, (and it may well be that the American way of life is the closest to our own of anywhere on the planet).

    Naughty prodigal cousins, but cousins nevertheless. Just because I think the revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown who engaged in a needless war against their own kind, knowing full well they would have been given full home rule and self-determination within a decade or so according to the prevailing view in Britain outside King George’s tenuous little parliamentary clique, doesn’t mean that people who want it don’t have a legitimate right to determine their own destiny.

    I only question the true reason behind it, and the myths it has engendered. I realise it’s not going to be popular among Americans, but all views should be regarded as valid in a free society, prior to examination.

    It is the reason you and I are arguing without trying to shoot each other.

    I can’t imagine a world that didn’t have modern America in it, and I’m not sure I’d like to even countenance what the world would be like today had that been the case.

    However, I still think the Stars and Stripes would have looked a lot better with a Union Jack in the corner instead of those silly stars.

  • BlueBonnie

    And for the person who might suggest that people simply remain in their homes, please go outside, look at your home and try to picture the difficulty a large group of people would have in gaining entrance. Nothing short of a concrete bunker(I exaggerate of course, but only a little) would stop anyone determined to wreak havoc.

  • Correct, Clavos. But enough of a force to cause major upheavals. One could draw from history.

  • Clavos

    Only because, in history, those assaulted by the mobs lacked the firepower to stop them.

    In modern times, the authorities (with a few notable exceptions like Pol Pot) lack the cojones to just mow the mob down, particularly in Western cultures.

  • How about if I put a sign outside my house that said, “Everything in here is really boring. Nothing here to interest tyrants, dictators, despots, Führers, Big Brothers, autocrats, totalitarians, megalomaniacs, oppressors, juntas, politburos or other types of not altogether nice people”?

  • Clavos

    That oughta do it, Doc, but you’d better post it in multiple languages.

  • So you are foreseeing, Clavos, the possibility of confrontation?

  • Do you have food? Clothes? Bottled water? Prescription meds? When the mob comes that’s what they’ll be looking for, Dr. D.


  • BlueBonnie

    #278. Tell that to Reginald Denny.

    #279. My good friend STM. I agree with you on many aspects. What the founders of my country had in mind is anyones guess. It is no myth that the victor gets the privilege of writing the history. As for when I lost my job. Mine was among the first to go. Shortly before last Christmas I was laid off and the company I worked for went under. My current location offers little more than a pat on the back and a cheerful “oh well”. As far as cousins, I consider the Australians, Kiwi’s and all other English speaking peoples to be my cousins. I do consider all other people to be(in a cosmic sense) a part of my family, although more related to the proverbial blacksheep that noone talks about.

    However, regardless of what others intentions might truly be, I can assure you that my intentions are as honorable and noble as I can manage. Were I to have been born upon foreign soil, I have no doubt I would feel just as strongly about standing for the things that you believe in. After all, if one does not believe there are things in life worth fighting for, then one leads a sad life indeed.

    The beauty in peaceful debate is that it strengthens our resolve and also allows us to weigh the opinions of others against our own. I do not like to argue. I do love to debate though.

    On a different note. Do you really think I could make a living out of this? 🙂 I do honestly value your perspective. It adds a viewpoint that I, as an American, can never possess.

  • Clavos

    Depends on how far the recession/depression gets, Roger.

    I don’t really think it’ll get that far; you or someone else postulated the mobs.

  • STM

    But this is the whole thing, isn’t it?

    This is the delusion …

    America isn’t in danger of falling victim to despots, tyrants, disctators, politburos, autocrats, genuine socialists, fuehrers, big brothers, totalitarians or all those rabid wombats we sent over from Australia to destroy American society as we know it.

    America’s a healthy democracy, even if it’s been a bit faux of late with too much power handed to lobby groups, the wealthy, corporations and people in positions of power who are too far removed from the wishes of the people.

    It’s proven itself so over the past 200 years, with one fairly major hiccup that was resolved, and honestly, can anyone see any real danger of a tyrannical government in Washington?

    Foolish meddling, pretending to be an oligarch and doing really stupid stuff is a lot different to real tyranny – especially when, according to the rule of law that is America’s foundation, the people have the power to tip a government they don’t like out of office.

  • Turbo T

    STM #220,
    [personal attack deleted] Next I suppose that since I have not succumbed to your drivel I’ll be called a red-neck hick? I feel your love you big fluffy bunny! Oh the tolerant left and their fantasies. Makes me want to sing!
    Wait, I know, let’s throw more money at it! That’ll fix it. How bout let’s quit paying for 50 years of failed social engineering and work together for a real solution?

  • BlueBonnie

    As for the Union Jack. We attempted to correct that mistake with a compromise of our own, but, Lincoln saw to it that we were unsuccessful.

    Clavo. Yes, I know Reginald Denny was unarmed and driving directly into the mob. Why he would stop his 80,000 pound vehicle instead of making his own path is beyond me. Just so you know, Clavo, I was joking.

  • @ #286:

    Sorry, Dave, all I have is half a kilo of kryptonite, an old Saturday Evening Post with Doris Day on the cover and some paper clips.

  • I’d like to see that edition. She was my favorite.

  • Turbo T

    the personal attack deleted was a cut and paste of what you called me!

    My previous post was silly and self indulgent and I how you will disregard it as such. I most humbly apologize.

  • STM

    Bonnie, I don’t agree with all of what you are saying, but I do recognise a really good turn of phrase when I see it – and I honsestly thought you might have been signed up somewhere by the gun lobby to present their point of view.

    Lol. Good thing I’m used to being wrong, then …

    It probably sounds trite if you are trying to juggle a family and all the bills after losing a job, if indeed that’s the personal situation you find yourself in, but it’s true that when one door closes, another opens.

    What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. If you’re serious about having a crack at writing for a living, try it out first by writing here for BC. You’ll be guaranteed to get plenty of “constructive criticism” at the very least.

    It’s all fun though, and the more the merrier.

  • Turbo T

    how + hope

  • I was wondering on what basis you were saying that, but I kept quite because I thought you had a reason.

  • BlueBonnie

    I take my leave. I wish you all a wonderful evening and hope that you all haven’t killed each other before I return. Goodnight all.

  • Turbo T,

    I see that now, but if you don’t italicize what you’re quoting or put quotation marks around it, then you can understand how I read it as a personal attack – especially since I had to go back about 60 comments to see what you were referring to.

    As for the body of your comment, well, STM obviously hit a nerve. No worries – much sillier stuff than that gets said on Blogcritics!

    Assistant Comments Editor

  • Doc, you should post that audio on every thread. I mean it.

  • Turbo T

    Honestly, I’m just a simple, self employed, durable medical equipment provider who’s really scared for my family, my neighbors and my country in face of the global economic crisis. My heart is breaking in the midst of what I perceive to be the loss of personal liberties under the constraints of huge spending and a mad rush to redistribution of wealth under the auspices of fairness. I do not believe that there is a basic right to equal outcomes.

    I’m 4th generation in my home state in the middle of America…desended from immigrants, mostly teachers, entrenpreneurs and preachers.

    I’ll gladly share more of my story and how I came to be the man I am but I’m not sure this is the place to do this. I do enjoy the insights of the people who write here and I appreciate the opportunity to grow here. Do any of you have suggestions on how best to proceed from here?

  • Turbo/Dave Nalle

    Talk to Dave Nalle, our Politics editor. His e-mail is listed on top of the page. Also, you can address him directly on any of these threads.

  • STM

    Turbo, I’m not a liberal in the way that you’d see a person as a liberal 🙂

    I’m Australian, not American, for a start.

    I live in a very egalitarian society that doesn’t think the concept we’ll loosely call “community” has any real connection to socialism.

    But nor does it preclude such things as locking up terrorists without first waving bunches of flowers at them, and certainly doesn’t involve any calls for the end of free-market capitalism.

    If you want to judge me, you need to judge me on that basis, rather than from an American perspective.

    I’ve already told you I don’t oppose gun ownership; just gun ownership without control. It’s my view that it hasn’t served America well, although it’s probably waaaay too late for change.

    The two places are different in outlook, and what would have me judged a liberal in America, like job protection, might have me seen as reasonably conservative in some ways here.

    Otherwise, none of the comparisons make any sense.

  • STM

    And Turbo, no worries about you giving me a gobful.

    I’ve been called a lot worse stuff 🙂

  • STM

    We’re all worried about our wellbeing, too. I can understand where you’re coming from on that score

  • Turbo, there’s always room for another writer here at BC. If you’re serious about writing up some of your experiences, drop me an email. My email link is at the head of the main politics page.


  • Thanks, Dave. He posted a very interesting, self-revealing picture of himself – expressing true concerns, #301 in fact.

  • Cindy



    Luv u to babe. Tho I can’t pray for ya.

  • Cindy

    to, too…close enough for government work.

  • Cindy

    I really loved the bit where you called Stan (STM) a big fluffy bunny, though. He always struck me that way too. 🙂

  • Turbo T

    Thanks to all you folks. I’ve contacted Dave and am excited to see where this leads. Keep in mind that I said I’m a “Simple” man, NOT a stupid one! 🙂

  • That’s a job for you, Cindy. Read #301. I wouldn’t have tact or heart enough to break him out of his habits.

  • Turbo T

    Which government? The EEEEEVIlll one or the other one?

    Good night all!

  • STM

    Now let’s make sure Bonnie gets a gig too!

  • Things are getting a tad scary here in Panama, particularly in Panama City (450 KM to our east) and Colon, further away, where violent crime is becoming all too frequent. Even within a 30 KM radius of our home, there have been three or so armed burglaries within the past couple of months. Typically, that sort of thing occurs at about 2:00 AM. Fortunately, we live in a sparsely populated rural area fairly remote from other Gringos, the main targets. We have five big, loud dogs who sleep in our house (and hence are not as likely as dogs left outside to be given poisoned meat), security lights, a locked gate and a worker who lives on our finca. Our house cannot be seen from the road.

    Nevertheless, I am seriously considering the purchase of a shotgun. There simply is no police force close enough to do us any good; the closest police station is about thirty KM away, and the last eight KM or so to our place is over unpaved and very rough roads. It would take at least a couple of hours to get the police here, if they would bother to come at all; then, it would be too late.

    I have never owned a firearm, wish I did not now feel a need, and haven’t fired one since I was in the Army some forty years ago. Then, I had little interest in the subject, and felt less need, to learn more than the minimum required. It seems to me that, for my purposes, a pump action shotgun would be best. I could probably hit a moving target at twenty feet, with the second if not the first shot.

    The licensing procedures in Panama are fairly cumbersome — a modest psychiatric evaluation, a blood sample for DNA, and (except for a shotgun) a ballistics test — and take several months. Use of a firearm without a license is a serious offense, and likely to result in jail time — even if used in one’s home for self defense.

    Anybody out there have any recommendations for a shotgun?


  • Clavos

    No recs for the gun, Dan, but if you buy one, be sure, very sure of two things:

    1. You know how to use it (including stripping it down and re-assembling it) and use it well — practice, practice, practice.

    2. Be absolutely sure you can philosophically use it, and will use it — reflexively — without pausing to think about it. Anything less will likely end with the gun in your attacker’s hands, being used on you.

  • BlueBonnie

    My personal favorite is the Maverick 88 Security model. 18.5″ barrel, 6 round cap. The Maverick is manufactured by Mossberg and is, essentially, a $200 carbon copy of the popular Mossberg 500. The buttstock is interchangable with that of the mossberg, however, on newer models the fore end is molded to the actual pump mechanism and is, therefore, not interchangable. Overall the maverick is the best shotgun for the price. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any shotgun for $200 with comparable quality that was not a single shot.

  • Thanks, Clav. I appreciate the advice, with which I am in complete agreement. Once upon a time, in the distant past, I was required to demonstrate the ability to field strip an M1 blindfolded. I shall certainly try to achieve that level of competence with any firearm I come to own. As to practice, damn right. Practice has the additional benefit that it makes people aware that one has a weapon, which can have a useful prophylactic effect.

    As to being able philosophically to use it, I don’t see that as a problem; I won’t know, however, until I have to do it. It’s my philosophical as well as practical opinion that any armed burglar who comes into my house should leave dead. I have heard all sorts of stories about weapons being turned on their owners during “pirate” boardings, and understand that cruisers with weapons on board are significantly more likely to be shot (with their own firearms) than cruisers who don’t have them. That’s the main reason we didn’t have any when we were sailing around in the Caribbean.


  • bliffle

    “As to being able philosophically to use it, I don’t see that as a problem; I won’t know, however, until I have to do it.”

    Yeah. That’s EXACTLY the problem.

    99% of people will have their gun taken away from them by a smiling, friendly, wheedling criminal.

    They wait and wait, reluctant to kill such a harmless fellow, until it is too late.

  • Mar k

    Parenthetical Dan – I suggest that you go with one of these puppies, you know, to be sure. I particularly like the HE option.

  • Mar k,

    Thanks, but I fear that puppy would be far beyond my budget. And, even were it not, I would be reluctant to use it in my house; I would want to dispose of the miscreant who broke in, not the entire house.


    Yeah. I know. However, I use the word “burglary” in its traditional sense, the (1)nocturnal (2)breaking and (3)entering of a (4)dwelling house with (5)intent to commit a (6)felony (7)therein. It seems unlikely that in those circumstances I would be much moved by “a smiling, friendly, wheedling criminal” or that I would have much doubt as to his felonious intentions. I hope I never have to learn whether I can shoot such a person, but think I would be able to do so in the correct circumstances.


  • BlueBonnie

    Dan. What is your desired price range? As I mentioned in #317 the Maverick is a very affordable and reliable option. If you are looking to spend a little more, my preference would lead me to the Remington 870. The price ranges from $400 to $900 or more depending upon where you are(that is in the U.S. I have no idea what to expect as far as price in Panama). The 870 is in use by Law Enforcement, Military and alot of home defense minded individuals. Very reliable, a wide range of options and upgrades and very user friendly. Take down is quick and painless. I hope the two suggestions I have given you are helpful.

  • BlueBonnie,

    The Maverick seems a good choice, and at about $200 an excellent one. I had been planning on spending $400 – $500, and less than that would be great.

    From what I have heard, nothing is available here for less than about $450, and the costs/aggravations of trying to import one from the U.S. would be substantial.

    So, I shall look for a Maverick and, if available, that’s what I shall get.

    Thanks again.


  • BlueBonnie

    Glad that I could help.

  • The problem with the Maverick is that you can’t use it for much of anything except home defense, so if you wanted to shoot clays to practice or do a little bird hunting on your land it wouldn’t be a lot of use. It seems sensible to me to have a shotgun which is good for more than just home defense if you’re going to spend the money.

    That being the case, going with a regular Mossberg 500 would keep you in the same price range as the Maverick while you’d still have a gun which was useful for other purposes. Or for about $100 more you could get a second barrel. The Maverick barrel will mount relatively easily in place of the longer Mossberg 500 barrel and that would effectively give you both guns.

    The Remington 870 would be a great recommendation if your goal is competitive shooting or serious hunting, but for anything else it’s prohibitively expensive.

    BTW, Dan’s description of Panama’s gun laws is truly dismaying. That’s probably where we’re headed here in the US and exactly why we need to fight every attack on the 2nd amendment.



    “3. If the State National Guard was mobilised to protect the Texan public, they would be a professional army and wouldn’t want an amateur of your age getting in the way. As there is no sign of this “societal breakdown” you refer to, we can presumably attribute this to your latent desire to join a militia in one of those distant northern states like Montana.”
    – Christopher Rose

    Oh sure, Chris, try to pawn him off on us Montanans. Thanks.

  • Dave,

    Thanks, but home defense is all that I have in mind.

    The gun laws here are indeed somewhat dismaying for those who wish to abide by them. Those who don’t, like those in the States who don’t, apparently are not much bothered. For a bit of a horror story, read the article I linked in #315.


  • BlueBonnie

    Dave. The least expensive Mossberg 500 sells for $354 brand new. A full $155 more than a brand new Maverick. The Remington 870 model has a bottom line firearm which costs $372, which is, obviously, only $18 more than the basic 500 model. Neither is prohibitively expensive, although both are nearly double the price of the Maverick. You could save the difference between either the Mossberg or Remington and purchase an extra barrel for the Maverick if you wish to do some hunting or clay shooting. This is, in my opinion, more than enough reason to eliminate the other two choices. And it also illustrates that the Mossberg is not in the same price range as the Maverick anymore than the Remington is over priced. It all comes down to your needs. I do not need the tactical stock and ghost ring sights of the more expensive Remingtons anymore than I need a door breaching muzzlebreak on the Mossberg. I need a good shotgun that is affordable, reliable and easy to operate. I believe Dan wants the same. That is the Maverick.

  • BlueBonnie

    Of course, any of these firearms are subject to be priced lower or higher, depending on the dealer.


  • Weird pricing you’ve got there, BB. At our local gun show Mossberg 500s go for about $250 and Remington 870s start at around $450. GunsAmerica bears those prices out, except you can apparently now get an 870 with a crappy composition stock for around $400.

    But yes, for home defense and nothing else a Maverick is a fine choice. Of course if that’s all you have in mind any used shotgun for $100 at a pawn shop will do the job.


  • BlueBonnie

    Dave. As Dan pointed out all the difficulty he will have to go through to find himself a decent shotgun, I assumed he would not be able to purchase one at a show or a pawn shop. It is true that you can find plenty of both here in the states, but I know nothing of firearms in Panama, much less about their gunshows or pawn shops. The prices I quoted are direct from the manufacturers websites, from there the firearms would go to dealers, where Dan will probably be purchasing one above MSRP, which is why I quoted MSRP. Honestly, when I order firearms, my local dealer gives me the dealer price, which is usually far less than MSRP. But I don’t want Dan to expect that he will find a used shotgun, and be disappointed, because I honestly don’t know how available used firearms are where he is located. Should he find a used shotgun for $100 that would be fantastic. It’s all about Dan and what he can find in Panama.

  • BlueBonnie

    Let me rephrase the first sentence in my last post. Dan pointed out all the trouble he will have just being allowed to OWN a firearm.

  • I wonder if the people who register guns will look at him askance if he orders one which is specifically for home defense, since that’s probably the kind of use they frown on. For that matter what are the rules on shipping firearms out of the country. It’s certainly not the same as shipping them to a FFL. He’s probably going to be limited to whatever they have in their stores, which likely cater to their elite class and therefore will mostly have high end shotguns and nothing like what we’ve been discussing.


  • BlueBonnie

    You know, Dave, that could very likely be the case. If so, we have both been blowing smoke up his hind quarters!

  • BlueBonnie

    Imagine our embarassment. Dan strolling up to the local dealer looking for a shotgun and the dealer says “Maverick? Never heard of him.”

  • Cindy


    You might want to get some extra training, designed specifically to deal with your attacker based on what kind of weapon they might use.

  • Thanks for all the help, folks. I’ll let you know what happens.


  • Val

    FYI: I own a Maverick 88. It sat in my closet for years, went to shoot it, and the firing pin only hit the primer once out of 5 tries. Brought it home, thoroughly cleaned and lubed it, fired it again… only got 2 out of five rounds to fire. The firing pin is not hitting the primer reliably. I will try one more cleaning and lubing, but I presently have NO confidence in this shotgun. I did buy it because it was “cheap” and in my budget. I’m very happy I carry my Glock 26 all the time…


    P.S. I added a Spec Ops stock. (if you buy this stock please know that it comes with the allen wrench to attach it. Do not buy the special tool!) The shotgun looks great and the stock absorbs the recoil beautifully… now if I can just make it reliable.

  • Val, it doesn’t matter how many times you lube that thing it’s not going to fix the firing pin. You need to disassemble it and make sure that the pin is screwed in firmly. It’s probably loose.


  • Val

    What pin? The pin that holds the firing pin in the bolt? It is tight. Can you be more specific on the pin you are referring to? If you mean the firing pin itself, it does not screw in. It’s held by a pin to keep it from backing out. The firing pin moves OK in the bolt.


  • It’s quite simple. Lift the wossname, turn the oojamaflip in the doobrey, rotate six times anticlockwise whilst holding your nose and singing ‘Clementine’, then spray WD40 liberally and step quietly across to where the men in white coats are waiting.

  • Sounds like a scene from Monty Pythons – especially the men in white coats.

  • Clavos

    Fine old Britishism — “anticlockwise.”

  • Strangely, though, we don’t refer to Lucifer as the Counterchrist.

  • Didn’t he precede Christ?

  • Clavos

    Kafka is alive and well…

  • Val


    OK, my Maverick is officially a hammer.

    “You must bring me a shrubbery!!”

  • Val, I have a Mossburg 500 not a Maverick, but I think the mechanisms are basically the same. I may be wrong though, because I was pretty sure my firing pin screwed into the carriage.

    Silly to try to help you over the internet, but here’s a thought. When you flip the gun over and look into the breech there’s a flange there which engages a little lever in the bolt which advances the firing pin. If that flange is bent the firing pin won’t engage properly, which might explain your problem.


  • Clavos

    Ni! Ni! Ni!

  • So, who wants to sic the killer bunny on H&C?

  • Clavos

    We could turn him into a newt.

    But he’d get better.

  • BlueBonnie

    My Maverick has never failed to strike primer after about 5,000 shells. My Remington never missed a primer, neither did my Mossberg. Perhaps Val just got a bad pin? Either that or it was the sitting in the closet for years that did it. Did you ever fire the shotgun before it went into the closet? Just curious as you failed to mention this.

  • Cindy

    Let’s see if H&C is a witch.

  • Cindy

    We can toss him into an active volcano. If he floats on the lava he’s a witch. If he sink, he’s alright by me.

  • Bonnie, I’m sensing that it might not be the best idea in the world to break into your place and rummage through your jewelry cabinet to see if there might be something nice in there…!

  • STM

    Clavos: “Fine old Britishism — “anticlockwise.”

    So what’s the Seppo version then??

  • Clavos


    Counterclockwise. Hence the reason for Doc’s #344.

  • essex

    Good to hear that some action is being taken concerning the killing taking place. There is no stopping adolescences from shooting each other or avoiding disputes. Innocent children are killed and the authorities simply watch them pass by without taking any actions. Regulations regarding possession of gun is truly a dismay.

  • 18 months into the “Assault on Gun Rights,” and it still hasn’t begun at all, except as a convenient fantasy for hyperbolic web propagandists [with the initials DN].

  • zingzing

    ah, twas the good old days. before the left created death panels and killed the right’s grandmother, before all the right wing blogs were shut down, before obama declared he was a cracker-hatin’-muslim-fascist-communist from nigeria, before liberty died…

  • No doubt Dave is at UT Austin to cheerfully welcome the president today as he gives a speech on education.

  • zingzing

    you mean leftist indoctrination, handy? “education”… ha! we live in obama’s post-education america now… didn’t you get the memo? it was hammered onto your door, along with a note letting you know when to report to camp.

  • Oh, I missed that, sorry. I was out getting Hope [with portrait of Lenin] and Change [with face of Stalin] tattoed on my ass.

  • zingzing

    luckily, i was in the front yard, burying the corpse of freedom when they jackbooted up to my door.