"For Middle-Class Pakistanis, a Gun Is a Must-Have Accessory"

Greatest headline ever.

In today's Wall Street Journal, an story about incentivizing private solutions when public law enforcement fails:

After escaping kidnappers who chained him to a bed for 25 days, Mohammad Javed Afridi pressed Pakistani law enforcement for swift justice. The police offered him something else: temporary permits for four automatic assault rifles.

Since Mr. Afridi's ordeal ended in mid-October, police in his hometown of Peshawar, in northwestern Pakistan, haven't made an arrest in his case....

So the cops allowed Mr. Afridi to arm himself against future abductions. The 35-year-old journalist now carries an AK-47 to work and back home to his wife and five children. Relatives rotate duty as his bodyguards. If his car is again stopped by armed men on a dark road, Mr. Afridi vows to shoot first.

In Pakistan, at least, sometimes you really do need to own four assault weapons in self-defense—even the police think so. Suck it, Brady Campaign Myth #8.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sage||

    I love my MAK-90. Too bad ammo is getting so hard to find though.

  • Warty||

    I'd like one Galil, one Dagunov, and one Krinkov, please.

  • ||

    sage,

    Having all the guns you want and no ammunition for them is perfectly congruent with a plain reading of the 2nd. I guess you are just some sort of gun nut.

    1, 3, 4, 5, 6...

  • lunchstealer||

    One thing that struck me about Cape Town was that all middle class homes were walled and gated, and that most had prominent signs advertising which 'Armed Response' company they had contract with.

  • MAX HATS||

    What a wonderful society. We should indeed seek to emulate their ways.

  • Other Matt||

    What a wonderful society.

    Not so much, because of The police offered him something else: temporary permits

    Any place that has permits is not so good.

  • ||

    You also need an AK47 in Mexico. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. With its citzenry disarmed, or at least the law abiding portion of it, kinapping is a very lucrative business and one with poses few risks.

  • MAX HATS||

    Agreed, Matt. Don't need permits in Yemen, though. And you wouldn't believe the tax rate. I'm moving next month. I suggest all true freedom-loving Americans do the same.

  • Naga Sadow||

    In the words of the great warrior poet Ice Cube "Today I did not have to use my AK. It is good."

  • LurkerBold||

    Just give it up gun nuts. The only people who should have guns and ammunition are the police.

  • ||

    I originally read "temporary permits" in a sort of "hunting license" sense.

    Projecting, again, I guess.

  • Other Matt||

    The only people who should have guns and ammunition are the police.

    As well as video cameras, right?

    I suggest all true freedom-loving Americans do the same.

    I like canoeing on wilderness lakes too much, sorry.

  • LurkerBold||

    Other Matt,

    When the wildlife can shoot back then you can have a gun. ok?

  • ||

    He's probably be detained by US forces at some point as a terrorist.

  • Naga Sadow||

    LurkerBold,

    I'm gonna sign up to be an LEO and then . . . I'm comin' for YOU!!! I'm gonna give you such a beating Rodney King is gonna take notice. Oh, and then I'm gonna get away with it buddy.

  • Naga Sadow||

    LurkerBold,

    When the wildlife can shoot back, humanity is fucked!

  • LurkerBold||

    Naga,

    It is people like you that we have too much of in government. Just ask Radley.

    The US wild west cowboy gun policy is not the only thing that needs to change and you know it.

  • Other Matt||

    When the wildlife can shoot back then you can have a gun. ok?

    I don't hunt. Therefore, it has nothing to do with wildlife. Therefore, any living thing I'd be shooting at would by definition be able to shoot back. So, I can keep my rifles, right?

  • Naga Sadow||

    LurkerBold,

    Hmmmmmm . . . the bad grammar you demonstrate is familiar . . . OLS? Is that you? Where is your stupid link?

  • LurkerBold||

    I enjoy felching, seriously.

  • LurkerBold||

    Other Matt,

    Are you being serious? Why does anybody need rifles in their house? Afraid of the scary Marxists coming to take away your crt monitor? Maybe you are afraid of cowboy Naga, another gun slinging maniac?

    Only the properly trained and screened people in government should have guns.

  • Other Matt||

    Suck it, Brady Campaign Myth #8.

    I can't hardly read it, the lying fucks just irritate the hell out of me.

  • LurkerBold||

    The best solution is to just let the professionals at the law enforcement agencies do their jobs. No one else needs a gun.

  • LurkerBold||

    Other Matt,

    Also, I will decide how to properly train and screen people in government. I'm obviously the right person to have in power. I should have a 10k foot high statue of my genius. Only the functionally retarded like me should be given the power to decide who should have guns.

  • sage||

    Only the properly trained and screened people in government should have guns.

    I'm thinking that no one in government should have guns, except the military.

  • LurkerBold||

    Pretty funny. Complain about me then imitate me. At least have the decency to come up with your own handle, capitalist stooge.

  • sage||

    Wow, how original. Why don't you also type in all caps, like another BOLD we know around here. The real one.

  • LurkerBold||

    Fucking capitalist stooges! That last post wasn't me. Disregard it.

  • ||

    Uh, Matt, you're playing with a griefer (hat tip NutraSweet). If you want to, go for it, but know it.

  • LurkerBold||

    These are all fake posts. I haven't posted anything all day long. You guy are seriously pathetic in your need to make fun of someone who is obviously smarter than you are. That's why you pick on poor joe.

  • Other Matt||

    Are you being serious?

    Actually, yes, I am.

    Uh, Matt, you're playing with a griefer

    Yeah, I know. I figured it was joe, actually, due to his comments on another thread.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Epi,

    I misread it and thought you had typed queefer.

  • ||

    lurkerbold, the wildlife on two legs can and does shoot back. i've never had to shoot anyone, but i once did motivate a tweaker to make a rapid exit from my rural oregon property simply by exhibiting a .357 mag to him, not even having to point it. in the 30-45 minutes it would take a sheriff to get here, i am the law and the law is me.

  • ||

    Both are accurate, Naga.

  • phalkor||

    and now you reach the zenith of your self-parody...when you are spoofed into oblivion.

    It must suck a lot to live in a country where you really do need a firearm to defend yourself on a daily basis. I don't beleive that there are many places in the United States where this is true. Nonetheless, it would also suck a whole lot to live in a country where only governmental agents and criminals have access to lethal force. I don't want law abiding citezins to become a victim-class.

  • LurkerBold||

    @3:20,

    joe is not all that much smarter than anybody, but he is getting better.

  • LurkerBold||

    I'm not joe. I'm . . . (dramatic pause) LURKERBOLD! Tremble in fear libertards! Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

  • Naga Sadow||

    Props to Bruce!

  • LurkerBold||

    bruce,

    You would kill someone for walking on your "sacred" dirt?

    And some people think the Nazis were bad.

  • LurkerBold||

    bruce,

    You're pathetic! Defending your home and property from an intruder! What are you? Some sort of cowboy gunslingin' "well organized militia" or somethin? You should have let him at your wife, kids, and valuables. Then called the LEO's.

  • LurkerBold||

    Guns killed my father . . . and raped my mother!

  • LurkerBold||

    That last post wasn't me.

  • LurkerBold||

    @3:26 impersonator,

    He was not defending anything. He was scaring the shit out of someone just passing by.

    your melodrama is not helping your defense to be a gun slinging maniac.

  • ||

    I think we need an outing. It's clearly one of the regulars. I doubt it's an Urkobolder, since we have other means for disseminating chaos. Virginia Postrel?

  • LurkerBold||

    That last post wasn't mine but the imposter has correct logic.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pro Lib,

    I don't know. No one ever really "outed" Lefiti. Neil and Cesar were one and the same but they no longer post here using those handles.

  • LurkerBold....||

    .....formerly known as Edward, also formerly known as left titty.

    I was going to take over this blog, and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you darn kids!!!!!!!

  • Reinmoose||

    "Neil and Cesar were one and the same but they no longer post here using those handles."

    Which is a shame. Neil was so well done.

  • ||

    """"Why does anybody need rifles in their house?""""

    LukerBold is a troll, but I'll play on this question.

    The same reason cops need them. Humans can do horrible things to other humans.

    I saw a article the other day about LEO safety, they shoot themselves more than they are shot by others. If we were to make an argument banning guns for our own safety, the cops have to give them up. ;-)

  • LurkerBold||

    @3:33pm,

    ok that was funny.

  • ||

    I don't think LurkerBold was ever the real Edward. This performance art is more akin to Juanita or joe (who is actually Nick Gillespie).

  • LurkerBold||

    TrickyVic,

    You are only making an argument to get better cops instead of the one step away from corporate goons that we have now.

  • Shaggy LurkerBold||

    Like . . . Zoinks man! People are still allowed to own guns?

  • LurkerBold||

    Pro Libertate,

    Nick Gillespie is incapable of dumbing down that much even as wrong headed as he is.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pro Lib,

    What? Joe is Gillespie? Bullshit! Though I have suspected some Reason writers of trolling their own blog postings. But thats more in line with my paranoia brought on by watching to many movies . . . or is it?

  • ||

    Damn, LurkerBold is the lamest troll we've had around here in quite some time.

    He needs to sharpen up his wit and knowledge before posting disagreeable nonsense here. Trolls should post something humorous or at least intellectually defensible. These inane attempts just bore.

  • Other Matt||

    So the cops allowed Mr. Afridi to arm himself against future abductions

    This is the problem. It's basically "You can protect yourself, but only AFTER you need it." MD has this kind of mentality, you have to be a victim of violence to get a permit. They subsequently delay you for a year or so, and if you're still alive at the end, their logic is that you didn't need it anyway so they deny you. Kind of like the "Float the Witch" test.

    This is all put aside if you're politically connected. Quickly put aside if you're a democrat party hack that's politically connected.

  • ||

    Neil was in fact outed as Cesar by Jesse, who checked the IP logs upon our request.

    And agreed, Neil was excellent. Cesar has never appeared as himself to be congratulated for that creation.

  • LurkerBold||

    I haven't posted yet today. The previous posts are all imposters.

  • LurkerBold||

    J sub D,

    The Brady Campaign has done extensive research on this topic and they agree with me.

  • ||

    Which is a shame. Neil was so well done.

    Definitely the best and most amusing of all the trolls/clowns so far. The beer thread marked one of his best performances:

    http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126357.html

  • Paul||

    What a wonderful society. We should indeed seek to emulate their ways.

    We are, but without the guns.

  • ||

    I think Edward and Left titty are (were?) the same. LurkerBold isn't quite as ill-tempered, so it's either somebody else or he decided to change his approach a little bit to hide his identity.

  • LurkerBold||

    Other Matt,

    Perhaps we should go around shooting people who might commit crimes, then we will all be safer?

  • Helen Lovejoy||

    What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?

  • ||

    """You are only making an argument to get better cops instead of the one step away from corporate goons that we have now.""

    A swing and a miss.

  • LurkerBold||

    Helen,

    These goons do not care about children, unless they are working in salt mines for them at gunpoint.

  • Paul||

    Perhaps we should go around shooting people who might commit crimes, then we will all be safer?

    Patience, my young paduwon. We're getting there. For instance, by denying people the right to own a firearm on the basis that they "might commit a crime with it", well, the light's at the end of the tunnel on that one.

  • LurkerBold||

    I care about the childen, on a much deeper level that any of you capitalist pigs could possibly understand!

  • ||

    The Brady Campaign has done extensive research on this topic and they agree with me.

    Lame, boring drivel.

    FAIL!

  • Paul||

    I care about the childen, on a much deeper level

    That's probably why you're not allowed within 300 feet of a school.

  • Other Matt||

    Patience, my young paduwon. We're getting there. For instance, by denying people the right to own a firearm on the basis that they "might commit a crime with it", well, the light's at the end of the tunnel on that one.

    Why do it yourself, why not let the criminals do it? Oh wait, that IS what we're doing, never mind.

  • SIV||

    You also need an AK47 in Mexico.

    Buy local get a Mendoza

  • SIV||

    This performance art is more akin to Juanita or joe (who is actually Nick Gillespie).

    Can't be. Gillespie has a private sector job he can't waste all his time arguing on the 'net all day.

  • Naga Sadow||

    LurkerBold,

    I'm just rehashing but if only LEO's have guns . . . i'm turning LEO. Period.

  • ||

    I think Edward and Lefiti--one iteration of him, anyway--were the same.

    joe and Gillespie are one. I thought everyone knew that. I hope I didn't ruin the joke.

    I'm not sure why Cesar never returned (at least in his original form) after the Neil project. I thought Neil was tastefully done, a tour de force in Trollimpressionism. He should at least come back for a victory lap.

  • LurkerBold||

    Capitialist gun nut goons! It's for teh Childrens!

  • Paul||

    I think I hurt his feelers with that last one.

  • MNG||

    "Neil was in fact outed as Cesar by Jesse, who checked the IP logs upon our request."

    So that's what happened to Cesar?

    Dudes, that was uncool, I liked Cesar and "Neil" was at worst a minor annoyance and at best funny. Cesar probably left because of the IP check and revelation. That's a shame man.

  • MNG||

    "Gillespie has a private sector job"

    He does? Where? Does Reason know about it?

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pro Lib,

    (wink) Don't know what your talkin bout. My references to Gillespies Fonzi jacket AND joe's Fonzi jacket were two different jokes entirely.

  • ||

    You also need an AK47 in Mexico. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. With its citizenry disarmed, or at least the law abiding portion of it, kidnapping is a very lucrative business and one with poses few risks.

    I can say you're absolutely right on this. Even when the Mexican Constitution "grants" the right to the people to own firearms, it also states that the right is subject to whatever regulation the government sees fit - which means people do not have a right to possess firearms in Mexico.

    You can buy a pistol or hunting rifles and shotguns, but you need a license (hard to come by) and you have to register your gun at your local army office. Obviously, criminals and kidnappers skip that last part, for some reason...

  • Paul||

    Obviously, criminals and kidnappers skip that last part, for some reason...

    A new law is in order.

  • MNG||

    If joe is Gillespie, who does that me?

    Moynihan?

    Ewww.

  • ||

    Dudes, that was uncool, I liked Cesar and "Neil" was at worst a minor annoyance and at best funny. Cesar probably left because of the IP check and revelation. That's a shame man.

    We wanted to know because Neil was so well done, so we could credit who was doing it. I don't know why Cesar didn't show up for his well-earned praise.

  • MNG||

    "Even when the Mexican Constitution "grants" the right to the people to own firearms, it also states that the right is subject to whatever regulation the government sees fit - which means people do not have a right to possess firearms in Mexico."

    Yeah, this is no right at all. A right would have to have some ability to check the government, some area which, even if the government thought it good or reasonable to effect, it could not.

  • Reinmoose||

    I liked to think of myself as being played by Brian Doherty, but then that bubble was burst when he disappeared for a number of months

  • LurkerBold||

    Paul,

    With so many fakes on this thread how am I supposed to know which one was yours?

  • Warty||

    I think Pro L is playing a sophisticated joke on us. I'm on to you. *stares*

  • MNG||

    I dunno guys, outing someone even for praise can upset some folks. As I say, I'm sorry to se Cesar and I guess "Neil" go.

    Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to work on this post about Hugo Chavez for tomorrow's H&R. I'm telling you ahead of time, it's going to portray the man in a negative light. ;)

  • ||

    Warty,

    I was accused of being Penn Jillette (who has frequently and publicly stated that he's a Hit & Run reader) once, long ago. False, but I wish I'd figured out a way to make money as an impostor, unwitting or otherwise.

    Cesar surely wasn't banned. Neil was great, and I got the impression that the writers and editors hereabouts enjoyed him as well.

  • ||

    Not being familiar with the Brady myths, I went to look up No. 8. Of course, I stopped at No. 1:

    "Whereas an automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied), a semiautomatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger."

    Can anybody find the flaw in this statement?

  • MNG||

    It was my problem with laws like the DC gun ban. If the 2nd Amendment gives one an individual right (and if it did not, then how stupid is that really, the right to get together in a government militia, whoopedy doo!) then I couldn't imagine any individual interest in gun ownership that the DC law did not trample on. Government's interest there were not checked at all.

  • ||

    Seriously, Ms. Mangu-Ward. The word is "incent," or, in this case "incenting." It is a perfectly good word, and has the added advantage of actually being a word. Please use it in future, or I shall be forced to remonstrativize you further.

  • sage||

    Well, Lamar, if it instantly loads the next round without ejecting the previous case, it won't load at all, much less fire another round.

    Was that it?

  • MNG||

    Well Lamar, when was the last time you (or first time) you met someone who knew a great, great deal about guns but was about gun control?

    Most people who are for it are ignorant about guns in the classic sense. Many of them seem to think the things are just going to randomly and suddenly go off by themselves killing helpless 1 year olds...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Lamar - if those are going to be the definitions, then no, I cannot find a problem with the statement.

  • Warty||

    NRA MYTH #8:
    ASSAULT WEAPONS, AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES THAT WERE BANNED AT THE SAME TIME, ARE NEEDED FOR SELF-DEFENSE

    Response: False. As explained above, assault weapons utilize military features useful in combat, but which have no civilian purpose. Assault weapons are exceedingly dangerous if used in self defense, because the bullets many of the weapons fire are designed to pass through humans and will pass through structures, and therefore pose a heightened risk of hitting innocent bystanders. As Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police has explained: "An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them."37 No one would want a bullet fired in self defense to penetrate a home's walls, where it could strike bystanders in neighboring homes.

    High capacity magazines containing more than 10 rounds, which were also banned as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Act, are also not useful for self defense, as law enforcement expert Leonard J. Supenski has testified:

    "The typical self-defense scenario in a home does not require more ammunition than is available in a standard 6-shot revolver or 6-10 round semiautomatic pistol. In fact, because of potential harm to others in the household, passersby, and bystanders, too much firepower is a hazard. Indeed, in most self-defense scenarios, the tendency is for defenders to keep firing until all bullets have been expended."36

    Assault weapons were designed for military use. They have no legitimate use as self defense weapons.


    There's a lot of fail here. I don't have the patience in my old age to pick it apart; would anyone else like a go?

  • Paul||

    "Whereas an automatic weapon (machine gun)

    What do I win?

  • Paul||

    Please use it in future, or I shall be forced to remonstrativize you further.

    Thomas crown: May I offer you my sincerest contrafibularities?

  • Warty||

    Oh, and in the interest of transparency, I should let everyone know that I'm James Randi.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    you're still confusing me. why is a machine gun not considered automatic?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I'm Spartacus!

  • ||

    Nope. Well, that's true, and something I didn't think about.

    My point is that automatic weapon /= machine gun.

  • LurkerBold||

    TAO,

    They are just trying to use circular logic and strawmen to pretend that they have a need to randomly shoot their neighbors.

    Having guns is a privilege and should be granted cautiously.

  • dam it all||

    Owning a gun has NOTHING to do with hunting.

    I own a Remington Pump action 12 ga shotgun. I am trained to use AK-47 M-16,9MM, various other hand guns and my favorite the M4! ohhra.
    ( And I'm a straight 30 year old woman from S. Cali with 7 years military service)

    I own a gun because
    1. I like to shoot it.
    2. The sound of me pumping my shot gun serves as home protection. (If the sound doesn't scare them, then I will shoot)
    3. Guns are part of America's History. Without them, we could never have defeated the English, or the French, the Spanish or the Germans.

    And the West would have never been won.

    Gun control is simple, use two hands.
    be educated about them.

    You are more likely to be killed by your Family Dr, then you are by a Gun.

    By taking away the right for Americans to protect themselves, you alienate us from the rest of the world.

    Did you know one of the reasons the Japanese DID NOT invade the states?

    Because the Japanese knew that most Americans (at the time) Kept Guns.

    If you don't want to hunt, shoot, or protect yourself, it's very simple.

    Don't purchase a gun.

    If you take away the right to carry arms, only the criminals and government will be armed. And then where will we be?

    Damn it all.

  • ||

    Sorry Paul, I didn't see you there. Yes, you win. I would have also accepted the answer that real assault weapons have burst mode.

  • ||

    "They are just trying to use circular logic and strawmen to pretend that they have a need to randomly shoot their neighbors."

    Here's what we do with guns. First we rob the bank. Then we give the money to the poor. Then we rob the poor, and shoot the money!

  • LurkerBold||

    You sound like a bunch of Sarah Palin freaks from the wilderness. If you are such smart guys why did Reason endorse Obama instead of Palin?

  • ||

    Guns don't kill people. I DO.

  • phalkor||

    epi, how many lives have you taken?

  • sage||

    If guns cause crime then pencils cause misspelled words.

  • Paul||

    you're still confusing me. why is a machine gun not considered automatic?

    It's the reverse. An automatic weapon is not necessarily a machine gun. A machine gun is a weapon which cycles automatically via machine-action. Ie, the old standard WWII era .50 cal is a true 'machine gun'. Most automatic weapons are gas/recoil operated.

    Bottom line, leave it to people who know nothing about firearms to tell us how they operate, how dangerous they are, and how they're not intended for 'civilian use'.

    Sorry Paul, I didn't see you there.

    It's ok, Lamar, I'm used to it.

  • ||

    More than Stormbringer and Mournblade combined.

  • Paul||

    ( And I'm a straight 30 year old woman from S. Cali with 7 years military service)

    Prove it.

  • ||

    "If you are such smart guys why did Reason endorse Obama instead of Palin?"

    Because Obama makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X? It's TV quote time!

  • Urkobold™||

    "Prove it". . .WITH TASTEFUL NUDE PHOTOS.

  • ||

    "And I'm a straight 30 year old woman from S. Cali with 7 years military service"

    Straight? You mean like prude?

  • Other Matt||

    Many of them seem to think the things are just going to randomly and suddenly go off by themselves killing helpless 1 year olds...

    Worse. They seem to think that generally peaceful, law abiding citizens, upon touching an evil cosmetically incorrect firearm, suddenly become possessed by a homicidal rage that can only be slaked but a multiple spree kill.

    And I'm a straight 30 year old woman from S. Cali with 7 years military service

    Who can't possess a semi automatic rifle of a certain cosmetic appearance if she still lives in CA.

    real assault weapons have burst mode.

    Rifles, perhaps, "weapons" only to the extent that rifles exist as a subset of weapons in certain circumstances. The term "assault weapon" is stupid. If I assault you with a toaster, beating it about your head and genitals, it's an "assault weapon." The words were specifically chosen to take advantage of public ignorance, they admit it and revel in it. Such is the Brady Campaign.

  • Shadow of the Past||

    You guys would shit yourselves if you knew who I was in a former guise. The IP trick won't work either since I have a different ISP these days.

  • a||

    "Prove it". . .WITH TASTEFUL NUDE PHOTOS.

    Close ups are required.

  • MAX HATS||

    I'm a marine, and as best I can tell the definition of "machine gun" is a bit subjective. When an automatic weapon gets to a certain size/power of ammunition, it magically becomes a machine gun. The scientist in me does not find this particularly satisfying. If an automatic rifle is generally regarded as a machine gun, why not also an automatic pistol?

  • ||

    What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?

    What I'm thinking is that they probably need guns of their own.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I presume, MAX, that you are talking about the difference between the SAW and the 240B? Both belt-fed, automatic-firing weapongs, but because the 240B fires 7.62, the military calls it a machine gun and the SAW is an "automatic rifle".

  • ||

    @lurkerbold:

    would i shoot someone for walking on my "sacred dirt"? i hope i never have to, but i want to preserve all my options in case of need. no, i didn't scare the shit out of someone who was just walking by, i scared the shit out of someone who opened my gate, ignored the "no trespassing" sign and came all the way up my driveway to case my house. if i enjoyed killing people, i could have done so in this instance, wrapped the corpse in a tarp and taken it further up into the coastal mountains for a burial attended only by tall firs and maybe a spotted owl.

    everyone has guns where i live, so there's very little crime. when you hear a gun go off, it usually means someone's trying for an elk, and when you hear an explosion, it means that they missed the elk and hit their propane tank.

  • MAX HATS||

    It's the reverse. An automatic weapon is not necessarily a machine gun. A machine gun is a weapon which cycles automatically via machine-action. Ie, the old standard WWII era .50 cal is a true 'machine gun'. Most automatic weapons are gas/recoil operated.



    ??

    So you're telling me a M240B is not a machine gun because it is gas-operated? Most of the world would disagree.

  • MAX HATS||

    TAO:

    Everyone in the military I know does consider the SAW a "machine-gun."

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Yeah, I am with MAX - the distinction you guys are drawing is really outdated. Most automatic, belt-fed weapons are "machine guns" connotatively and denotatively.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    MAX - well, yeah, I do too, I was just wondering if the goofy designation of the SAW was what you were talking about when you said that the distinction is arbitrarily based on the caliber fired.

  • MAX HATS||

    But does it even need to be belt fed? I think if there's going to be a hard line separating machine guns from other firearms, automatic fire seems as good as any to me. What if some future automatic weapon was fed via some sort of very high capacity magazine? Shouldn't it still qualify as a machine gun?

  • ||

    There's a lot of fail here. I don't have the patience in my old age to pick it apart; would anyone else like a go?

    First, and most obviously, the "assault weapons" that were banned were not, for the most part military weapons at all, but rather civilian semi-auto weapons with cosmetic accessories.

    Second, the argument that they use military rounds or rounds that pose some unique risk of passing through walls is simply untrue. An AK-47, round, for example, is a remarkably low-powered rifle round. Any round above a .22 LR will pass through drywall.

    That should do for now.

  • ||

    Shadow of the Past,

    linguist? de stijl? gauis marius? Norman Schwartzkopf?

  • ||

    Isn't it just a little bit suspiciuos that those here who own and know how to use lots of guns are the ones who are so adamant about being allowed to have them? One would wonder why they feel the need to have them if the rest of us are perfectly happy without them.

  • phalkor||

    if they're using drywall as the benchmark for deadliness, a well-thrown baseball or even better a pool cue can easily go through drywall. fists too, but that tends to hurt unless feuled by excessive rage and/or alchohol.

  • ||

    because it's our right, momwallington, under the 2nd amendment of our bill of rights, which we learned about in elementary school, took seriously because we were kids then, and have practiced ever since. you don't hear us questioning your rights not to self-incriminate or to be free from unreasonable searchs and seizures, do you? it's part and parcel of being an american.

    on a side note, if any of you ever drive up i-5 to eugene, oregon, take a look down to the right when you're about ten miles south of town and check out the marquee "shoot a real tommy gun". every time i go by there with a woman on board, i tell her "that would be a great date sometime. some other time than right now."

  • NeonCat||

    @ momwallington62

    I suspect it is for the same reason that art lovers tend to know a lot about art, car lovers about cars and trolls about trolling.

    Who are you to tell someone else what they can or can't be allowed to own?

  • Paul||

    Isn't it just a little bit suspiciuos that those here who own and know how to use lots of guns are the ones who are so adamant about being allowed to have them? One would wonder why they feel the need to have them if the rest of us are perfectly happy without them.

    I think you have unwittingly answered the conundrum surrounding the right to bear arms. If you're not comfortable bearing them, then don't. That is all.

  • Other Matt||

    Isn't it a little suspicious that those here who own and use cars are the ones so adamant about being allowed to have them?

    Isn't it a little suspicious that those here who own and use bicycles are the ones so adamant about being allowed to have them?

    Isn't it a little suspicious that those here who own and use swimming pools are the ones so adamant about being allowed to have them?

    Isn't it a little suspicious that the reason that the people own what they do is because it's something they want to do, and should be able to do, therefore trying to deny them that gets them upset?

    Isn't it a little suspicious that the people who are against firearms seem to have this view of the world that you have no innate right to anything, other than what they perceive as a "need" by their sole definition?

    Isn't is suspicious that mw62 is perfectly happy? Could it just be mental retardation?

    Just 'cause we're throwing out statements but trying to word them as some kind of spooky scary statement, you know.

  • Boston||

    Shadow,

    Chris Potter / Crimethink?

  • ||

    People who can't tell the difference between someone arguing the other side of an issue and a spoofer throwing softballs are people who've never bothered to seriously consider, or even familiarize themselves with, the arguments made by people on the other side of the issue.

  • ||

    But Bruce, what about my and my family's right not to be shot by our crazy neighbor? What about our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
    If we need to be protected from someone, it's usually from someone with a gun. How is allowing more guns going to solve this problem, and the gang problems on our inner-city streets? The police act as our arms on our behalf, and in this way the professionals can guard us from harm - both from the criminals and from ourselves and our neighbors.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Isn't is suspicious that mw62 is perfectly happy? Could it just be mental retardation?

    Win. And for what it's worth, I am a Second Amendment absolutist and do not own one firearm.

  • Paul||

    MNG, TAO:

    Terms of art...terms of art.

    Assault weapon... machine gun... all of these things are used loosely. I will say that machine gun, while yes, used loosely to refer to 'automatic weapons' is something which is technically more concrete. Most often, the recoil action drives a mechanism which forces the next round from the magazine/belt/box into the chamber and primes the weapon firing pin for firing again.

    Some machine guns are more reliable because if a round doesn't fire, it is ejected and the next round loaded into the chamber. Electrically operated machine guns function this way.

    Gas operated weapons, however, must have the round go off to effectuate the action for bolt to be thrown back, the round ejected, and the next round forced into the chamber.

    Assault weapon being one of the dumbest terms ever perpetrated on the public at large, it should be hammered again and again that it refers to cosmetic or 'comfort' attributes on a firearm.

  • ||

    Paul - yes, you may, but only this nonce.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    But Bruce, what about my and my family's right not to be shot by our crazy neighbor?

    You have that right. Although if you are living next door to a crazed gun-toting madman, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with a pistol post haste.

  • ||

    Isn't it just a little bit suspiciuos that those here who own and know how to use lots of guns are the ones who are so adamant about being allowed to have them? One would wonder why they feel the need to have them if the rest of us are perfectly happy without them.

    I always found it remarkable how the unarmed can demand from the armed that they give up their weapons, because they don't feel "good" about other people having them.

    That the demand doesn't end in a bloodbath, well, the irony is lost on them.

  • ||

    Although if you are living next door to a crazed gun-toting madman, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with a pistol post haste.

    Or a moving van coupled with better due diligence about who your neighbors are.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    The police act as our arms on our behalf, and in this way the professionals can guard us from harm

    The police act as a deterrent and an investigative force after the criminal act, but I highly doubt that, in the moment you're facing that neighbor of yours, that the police are going to be there in time to help.

    And if they are there, they'll probably end up shooting your dog.

  • ||

    If we need to be protected from someone, it's usually from someone with a gun.

    I thought there was an old saying about knives and gunfights.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Or a moving van coupled with better due diligence about who your neighbors are.

    SRSLY. I love how "we have the police!" is somehow code for "I do not have to act with any responsibility to protect me and my family. I can just be lazy."

  • Warty||

    Fuck, now I can't read joe's posts without hearing Gillespie's voice in my head. Damn you, Pro L!

  • phalkor||

    I find that firearms engender strong philos and phobos. It's really kind of weird. I have friends who freak out when they see my hunting rifle and I know people who stroke pistols like they are freaking kittens. Both reactions seem a little strange to me.

    Everyone should just calm down.

    oh, just reminded myself, I had a friend in high school who when offering to smoke some pot used to say, "Hey, you wanna see my dad's gun?" I chuckled everytime.

  • </||

    Machine gun, sub-machine gun, machine pistol...

    yup, all full automatic

  • ||

    Warty,

    It's so obvious once you know. Ever notice how rarely Nick posts comments, unlike virtually ever other writer/editor here? That's 'cause he's busy challenging us with cherry-picked information and claims that the Democrats are God's Chosen People™.

  • Paul||

    But Bruce, what about my and my family's right not to be shot by our crazy neighbor?

    What does that have to do with the right to bear arms? I have a right not to be beaten to death with a baseball bat by my crazy neighbor. I have the right not to be stabbed repeatedly on the front steps of my apartment by the crazy homeless [click to 'picture three' on story] guy down the street.

    If we need to be protected from someone, it's usually from someone with a gun.

    First off, not true. But for the sake of your argument, that gun owner is more than likely someone who owns the gun illegally, aquired it outside of legal channels, and is unaffected by bans, licensing rules etc. So what is your point?

    The police act as our arms on our behalf, and in this way the professionals can guard us from harm - both from the criminals and from ourselves and our neighbors.

    What's going on inside your house? I don't need the police to protect me from me.

    But again, for the sake of argument-- we are allowed to own firearms to protect us in the moments between "Oh shit, honey, did you hear that noise downstairs?" and the police arriving just in time to call the coroner.

  • Guy Montag||

    RC Dean,

    What I'm thinking is that they probably need guns of their own.

    Thanks for reminding me of my hibernating Guns for Kids program (programme in canada and the UK), GFK. Need to dust that one off soon.

  • ||

    I don't know about you, but I can't just move my entire family all just because you have to feel like real men and let people have weapons. What if I can't afford to move? We have a house we can barely afford thanks to your deregulatory ideology, and we can't even sell it if we wanted to. Now you want to play down the danger that you're putting all of us in by letting just anybody have a deadly weapon.

  • phalkor||

    momwallington, you wanna see my dad's gun?

  • ||

    momwallington, there are laws in place protecting you from your neighbors. incidentally, your "right" to pursuit of happiness isn't codified in the constitution, it's in the declaration of independence, a fine statement to be sure, but of no present-day legal force. if your neighbor is a criminal, he is unlikely to surrender his arms voluntarily, and if you take them away from the law-abiding, he'll be the only armed man in the neighborhood, a prospect that should give you pause. moreover, the police are not a 100% effective prophylactic against crime, and sometimes they're the ones committing crimes.

  • Paul||

    I don't know about you, but I can't just move my entire family all just because you have to feel like real men and let people have weapons. What if I can't afford to move?

    That's. why. we. have. the. right. to. bear. arms.

    I swear if you provide the ammo for refutation of one more of your own arguments within the same sentence...

  • Other Matt||

    Both reactions seem a little strange to me.

    I'd agree with that. The problem is that it isn't limited to firearms, it's just that people have a whole belief system around firearms which further colors it.

    On a grand scale, people use the word "guns" as representative of "violence", typically, when they're in a banning mood. "We need to get rid of the guns!" is really a cry for help in dealing with violence, though they've personified violence in an inanimate object.

    On an individual scale, you get the kitten petting types and the run screaming types. There seem to be two types of kitten petting types, one that is entranced by the mechanics and function of it. It's the same reaction where I go down the C&O canal, as I can appreciate what it took to do it and how they did it. The second type is more entranced with what they perceive as the "power" of the firearm.

    The run screaming types, the majority I've encountered are really scared of themselves. They see the "gun" as being all powerful and can't handle the thought of their own self with that power, I guess. They view a firearm as some kind of evil talisman which is destined to drag them down to nefarious pursuits if it's in their field of vision.

  • Guy Montag||

    mom62,

    Have you checked out Ashley Renee's website yet? She can be scared by guns on occasion too.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    We have a house we can barely afford thanks to our deregulatory ideology own fiscal irresponsibility.

    FTFY

    See, momwallington, you're the kind of people that really grates on my nerves. All kinds of excuses for why you cannot protect you and yours; why you cannot leave and why you cannot protect yourself.

    You're not a helpless babe in the woods. You're an adult. Buy your own gun. Install an alarm. Start a neighborhood watch with this guy in mind. Do something other than whine about your situation and say "there oughta be a law...'cause I am too lazy to help myself."

  • ||

    ...all just because you have to feel like real men...

    "This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting. this is for fun."

  • Guy Montag||

    You're not a helpless babe in the woods.

    Speaking of Ashley Renee . . .

  • Ska||

    Times I've been held at gunpoint: 4
    By police: 2
    By muggers: 2
    By friends, family, neighbors, coworkers: 0

  • Ashley Renee||

    Paul,

    Are you one of those "a revolver is not a pistol" types?

  • ||

    "we have a house we can barely afford thanks to your deregulatory ideology...". hold it right there mom! do you expect that your housing would be cheaper, on balance, if we regulated the price of housing, taking into account what our tax burden would be in a socialized housing milieu? do you imagine that housing would even be available for everyone if there were no profit incentive for builders to build? do you know what the housing situation was like in soviet russia, which you seem to admire? is it our responsibility that you bought more house than you could afford, and that we should bail you out?

    as a famous band once played, "you can't always get what you want." maybe you should sacrifice your cable tv or your designer handbags. i don't have tv because it's 99% garbage, so i use the savings for things i enjoy, like cooking, good wine, and yes, guns.

  • Warty||

    You took it too far and made it too obvious, Mom Wallington. Are you Nick Gillespie too?

  • Paul||

    Are you one of those "a revolver is not a pistol" types?

    No, and in fact I'm not an 'automatic is not a machine gun' type, either. I was merely answering lamar's question which got a side discussion started.

  • ||

    I am not going to have a gun in my house because guns just lead to trouble, trouble that I wouldn't wish on you or your children. You don't think it can happen to you, but children get hurt and sometimes killed by playing with guns, and this happens all the time. It's their childlike curiosity, and they don't know any better. How can you justify these casualties just so that you can have a weapon in your home? G*d forbid it happen in any of your families.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I suspect that momwallington doesn't even have a crazy neighbor. I suspect she barely knows her neighbor's name because she's too enamored with her three* little brats and all the ookie wookie smugum wugum cutesy stuff they do.

    Go take your neighbor a casserole or cookies or something. I'll lay you 5-1 he's not that bad of a guy. Most people aren't.

    * - a guess

  • Guy Montag||

    mom62,

    Just how exactly can you now "barely afford" your house due to "deregulatory ideology"? If your mortgage is about to reset the interest rate must be lower than it was when you borrowed the money.

    Also, a whole crapload of help has been enacted over the past 18 months or so to help you stay in your house. Maybe you should check into that?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    How can you justify these casualties just so that you can have a weapon in your home?

    What casualties? I do not have kids, so what is your point? Also, is it really my fault if you're categorically incapable of buy a thing called a "box" and putting this nifty device called a "padlock" on it so your precious ones don't go into mommy's room and take your firearm?

    How helpless are you, really?

  • Guy Montag||

    I am not going to have a gun in my house because guns just lead to trouble, trouble that I wouldn't wish on you or your children.

    I am not big on the musicals, so someone correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe those are the words to that song from "The Music Man". I seem to remember something about the game of pool leading to trouble. In some sort of rhyming Dr. Farrakahan way.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I am boggled that momwellington thinks that the fact that her kids might get a hold of her theoretical gun is somehow an argument against EVERYONE owning one.

  • Reinmoose||

    GM -
    "Trouble - with a capital T the rhymes with P that stands for pool"

  • Paul||

    I am not going to have a gun in my house because guns just lead to trouble, trouble that I wouldn't wish on you or your children.

    Now we're getting somewhere. If your trembling hands cannot handle a firearm on the premisis because you're one drink away from an angry shooting spree, then you, madame, should not own a firearm. You are the poster child of self restraint. We thank you for your sacrifice and service to our city streets.

    You don't think it can happen to you, but children get hurt and sometimes killed by playing with guns, and this happens all the time.

    Actually it doesn't. If you'd like to mosey on over to the CDC's website, they have a nifty query tool which will show you exactly how many kids are killed with guns.

    It's their childlike curiosity, and they don't know any better.

    momwallington62, meet parenting, parenting, meet momwallington62.

    How can you justify these casualties just so that you can have a weapon in your home? G*d forbid it happen in any of your families.

    Come again. The same way you justify almost 6,000 motor vehicle deaths of children under 18 because of your desire to have a car in your driveway.

    Are you even thinking your arguments out before you start typing?

  • Guy Montag||

    R,

    T/Y, I somehow knew there would be a showtunes fan here :)

    Oh, wacked out mom lady, I never had any gun trouble with my child. I even gave him an automatic pistol for his birthday. He has a pretty cool shotgun too, but I prefer mine.

  • MNG||

    "See, momwallington, you're the kind of people that really grates on my nerves."

    You mean dark skinned TAO?

  • Paul||

    You mean dark skinned TAO?

    MNG,

    That might have been uncalled for.

  • MNG||

    I dunno Paul, check out the January 2nd 12:58 thread.

    TAO can get pretty exercised about things that restrict s small subset of white folks rights, but comparitvely laissez-faire when it comes to some pretty serious rights of darker folks.

    I'd say don't get him started on poor mothers, but looks like he already went there. Bully.

  • MNG||

    "All kinds of excuses for why you cannot protect you and yours; why you cannot leave and why you cannot protect yourself."

    Poor people are victimized at higher rates than their wealthier counterparts, and it's fairly obvious why. It's harder for them to buy things that dissuade offenders, good locked windows, locks, having a yard with a dog (a very effective deterrent to invaders actually), or a gun.

    But of course all poor people are poor because of their own stupid decisions. They chose to be born into homes that didn't value education, and homes where they were ignored growing up and did not develop the cultural and social capital that research demonstrates is the greatest predictor of school success (James Coleman's work), they chose to be born at higher rates among people who still face discrimination because their ancestors efficacy in life was undercut by being forcibly enslaved and segregated from major opportunities.

    They chose it.

    Oh, and people plan on getting sick, for example, another major cause of poverty.

  • Paul||

    But he's an optimist...albiet an angry one...

  • MNG||

    Blacks have a poverty rate 3 times that of whites (around 24 to 8%).

    So for those who think poverty is the result of poor decisions, then why do so many blacks, so many more than whites, make poor decisions? I mean, what is wrong with those guys!

  • Paul||

    Better than an angry optometrist, I suppose.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    gosh you must be lonely, MNG. You're practically at my door, begging me to come out and play.

  • ||

    There's a lot of fail here. I don't have the patience in my old age to pick it apart; would anyone else like a go?

    What's that Warty, you need someone to rail on and on about guns on your behalf? Will do.

    As explained above, assault weapons utilize military features useful in combat, but which have no civilian purpose

    The primary feature would be 3-round burst or automatic fire, which none of the named weapons of the federal assault weapon ban had. Other AWB silliness would be fearmongering over features such as bayonet lugs, magazine that don't feed through the grip (oh the humanity!), the conspicuous pistol grip on a rifle, barrel shrouds, and of coarse pistols that weigh over 50 ounce which a crimnal could use to beat someone to death with.

    Assault weapons are exceedingly dangerous if used in self defense, because the bullets many of the weapons fire are designed to pass through humans and will pass through structures, and therefore pose a heightened risk of hitting innocent bystanders.

    The primary cartridges used in "assault weapons" would be 9mm, .223 Remington, and 7.62mm x 39mm. As even gun novices know, these are not particularly powerful rounds. The .223 and 7.62 x 39 are bottom-end deer cartridges. A standard deer rifle, like a .270, has a LOT more energy and velocity. Anything more powerful than a 22 short has the possiblity of overpenetrating. What is ignored in the line of reasoning quoted above is the person "using" the weapon in self defence is most likely not actually going to have to fire it. Also ignored is that if a person "uses" or fires a weopon in legit self-defence, they were acting to save their own life. On the good/bad scale, we are already at +1. Minus the weapon the score is -1. The remote risk of hitting someone other than or in addition to the asailant is a secondary concern - an unfortunate reality until we develop phasers.

    As Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police has explained: "An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them."37 No one would want a bullet fired in self defense to penetrate a home's walls, where it could strike bystanders in neighboring homes.

    This is my favorite: Ignorance from supposed experts. The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police wouldn't be surprised if an AK47 could go through 6 layers of drywall. If I recall correctly, my 9mm Calico (6" barrel) shooting FMJ would penetrate 6 layers of 3/4 plywood (I think I had a total fo 7 or 8 layers screwed together). But, mr expert says he wouldn't be surprised if a 7.62 x 39 AK round could penetrate as many layers of drywall, which is another way of admitting he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. If he had said "I wouldn't be surprised if it could penetrate 20 layers of drywall", I'd give hime some credit. Good thing he's behind a desk where he belongs.

    High capacity magazines containing more than 10 rounds, which were also banned as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Act, are also not useful for self defense, as law enforcement expert Leonard J. Supenski has testified:

    First problem is this presupposes the reason for having high capacity is self-defense rather than to kill people who would take away our rights or subject us to taxation without representation like is happening to Illinois right now. But, ignoring that, for some reason civilian police agencies often find a need to have 15 rounds in the gun and an extra magazine or two on them. Plus whatever they have in the trunk and whatever their comrades are carrying. But we don't need that. ...or maybe I'm wrong. The police do arrive on the scene without really knowing what's going on. They may inherently have to do a little more spraying, and I think the "opps" statistics support that they do.

    Assault weapons were designed for military use. They have no legitimate use as self defense weapons.

    No military in the world would buy any of the weapons on the Assault Weapon Ban list for use in actual combat. None of those models "were designed for military use". Other than that it's a true statement....


    (spellchecks are for fags like Oswald. Any mistakes are intentional)

  • MNG||

    Haha TAO, I've posted on many threads here today, and not referred to you once. Until you couldn;t help yourself and decided to pick on a poor mom.

    Tough guy.

  • MNG||

    Paul
    That dude drinks from the bigot spigot and may even fry his bacon in the Klan pan.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Yes, she's a member of the victimhood class, so I forgot that everything she says is the Word of the Lord. How dare I argue with her!

    So if I were a poor mom, my arguments would be invulnerable to attack!

  • Paul||

    Oh, by the way, according to the CDC, for the most recent year available, 154 children under the age of 18 were killed unintentionally with a firearm.

    I'm not exactly reeling backwards, arms cinematically outstretched to the sky, yelling "Cursed God! Why?!!! Stop the bloodshed!!!"

  • ||

    Hmmm. Looks to me like Mom may have started it.

  • MNG||

    There you go TAO, take it to that poor mom! Stupid victim speaking up!


    She's in the wrong, but she was polite and expressed her actual concerns and you call her a whiny loser who deserves what she has and make fun of her for haivng "three brats."

    Tough guy.

  • ||

    And I'm dubious about Mom's real existence. I think she may be Lance Armstrong.

  • MNG||

    If you read academic work on auhtoritarianism they all mention an aggressive dislike of those seen as weak BECAUSE they are weak. A love of strength and a hatred of weakness.

    No wonder TAO can't summon any pity for Palestinians, look how bad they fight.

    But they still got it over poor moms, those bastards!

  • MNG||

    It certainly doesn't matter if the mom is real. TAO certainly thought so, you can tell from the tenor and style of his posts.

    I kind of thought she may or may not be (the police as professionals guarding us kind of gives it away if she's not)
    But TAO's usual bullying attitude is for real.

  • Paul||

    The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police wouldn't be surprised if an AK47 could go through 6 layers of drywall.

    Executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, meet 'home defense rounds'.

    Man, that never gets old...

    OFF TOPIC ALERT.

    Got some nifty home defense rounds for my 1911. If I recall, they're a copper or brass slug with a large plastic bead in the tip. Can't remember the manufacturer.

  • another lurker||

    That lady was no mom!
    She was...

    Well, look at her email address.

    esoom@nier?

    I see it, anyway.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    She's in the wrong, but she was polite and expressed her actual concerns

    Polite? Let's roll tape:

    Isn't it just a little bit suspiciuos that those here who own and know how to use lots of guns are the ones who are so adamant about being allowed to have them?

    So, from the jump, she started casting aspersions and implying that 2nd-Amendment believers are somehow gun fetishists.

    I don't know about you, but I can't just move my entire family all just because you have to feel like real men and let people have weapons.

    Now implying that gun-lovers manhood somehow hinges on the possession of weapons. A common tactic you like to employ, MNG, that "manhood = whatever you believe".

    I am not going to have a gun in my house because guns just lead to trouble, trouble that I wouldn't wish on you or your children.

    And she's such a great mom that she's willing to use her children as an emotional bludgeon to close debate!

    Lest we forget, she also blamed libertarianism for her poor financial choices (nonsensically so, I might add).

  • The Angry Optimist||

    goddamit Reinmoose! That was a good one.

  • ||

    Times I've been held at gunpoint:

    2 for me. Both times were cops and both in the same night.

    Of course, the first one was very angry about us knocking over his mailbox, late one Sunday night, and after driving like maniacs to get away from him, ending by wiping out the car of a DC cop, parked in front of his house (dead end, wet, slippery lawn, not very good tires, you get the idea).

    He actually gave us very good advice about how not to get our stupid, teenage heads blown off by this enraged redneck cop. So, maybe that negates the first one.

    The 2nd time was by another cop at the police station that night, because, well, we had the temerity to disagree with him. It was 3 A.M., so switching to decaf wasn't in the cards for him.

  • Xanthippas||

    Suck it, Brady Campaign Myth #8.

    I know it takes the fun out of your day to point this out, but they obviously are referring to America, not a third world nation where kidnapping is real possibility.

    What a wonderful society. We should indeed seek to emulate their ways.

    Indeed, I am perfectly willing to trade my freedom from the fear of kidnapping so I can carry around a totally bad-ass gun.

  • ||

    MNG, Bullshit. The polite talk is her shtick. Like this:

    "All we want is reasonable gun control to protect our children"

    That's bullshit concern trolling (damn glad there's a name for it now) Fuck the person who wants to take away our rights. And while were fucking, fuck those children teh moms are so concerned about too. And the MADD bitches too. Doesn't matter what their tone is when they are trying to infringe on your rights. I bet the red coats had wonderful manners and loving families back home, but we killed em dead because they taxed like democrats. Am I straying a bit here? This is the point where I'd normally back up, erase everything and start again...

    (excuse my language, from Illinois an' all)

  • Paul||

    Years I've owned firearms: 30+

    Times I've pointed or fired a gun in anger (or even felt the need): 0

    Yes, I'm a gun nut.

  • ||

    Ah, Reinmoose spelled backwards is Serutan. He's a mother, all right ☺

    Not bad, but you did go a little over the top with "The police act as our arms on our behalf, and in this way the professionals can guard us from harm - both from the criminals and from ourselves and our neighbors."

  • Xanthippas||

    I bet the red coats had wonderful manners and loving families back home, but we killed em dead because they taxed like democrats.

    Well technically, they were shooting at us too.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I don't know; he did it dumbly enough that I thought he was your typical "security mom in the burbs".

  • Reinmoose||

    Yeah, I know I really did go overboard there
    But you know my trolling style. I never like to get too realistic, even though there was a frightening amount of momwallington62 that came pretty much directly from conversations I had on the subject with actual people.

  • ||

    No, no, it was nicely done. And I prefer that the author sign his work. Otherwise, we just end up flailing about with no end to the nondebate in sight.

  • ||

    Trouble - with a capital T the rhymes with P that stands for pool

    Right here in River City?

  • MNG||

    Yeah, that part where she (he) expressed concern for her children about trouble that she wouldn't wish on you and your children was really dirty fighting. I'm glad you blamed her bad decisions for her financial difficulties, told her what a whiner she was and made fun of her "brats." Boy was she asking for it!

  • MNG||

    But then all poor people are asking for the trouble they get, right TAO?

    And weak people.

    I wouldn't want to get you started on the handicapped.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Someoooone needs attention. Find somebody to scratch your belly or throw you a stick.

  • ||

    Oh Reinmoose!

    Won't we ever learn?

  • Paul||

    We should be careful on the trolling, fake trolling, double fake trolling, double-triple-dare fake real trolling.

    I work for an organization with a couple thousand peeps behind one (1) IP. And like many H&R posters, I post mainly from work. I also know there are at least two other people in my organization who are occasional posters to H&R. So I wonder if Reason has fingered me as a name switcher. Just sayin'.

  • Reinmoose||

    Paul, I agree.
    That's why I always try to identify myself in my trolls (via the Email, etc.)
    Hopefully they won't block me for the jest.

  • MNG||

    Reinmoose
    It was well done, maybe a bit too much with the line that went the "the police are professionals who can be trusted to protect us" stuff, but I bet there are people out there (I actually hope there are, I'd hate to think it's apathy that keeps anything from being done about those Balko posts).

    TAO
    Look seriously, getting your rage on about anti-discrimination laws while being unable to muster peep about the daily embargo and slaughter of hundreds, talking about OK you would be at killing or the deaths of the evildoers, braggina about how you could care less about poor kids and yelling at poor mothers is seriously a sign of having your heart in the wrong place. I don't want to "play" with or discuss anything with so callous a person, but don't expect everyone to not call you on your bullying when you can't help yourself and do it.

  • MNG||

    Jeez, that last one needed a preview. But I'm lazy like that ;

  • ||

    But you know my trolling style. I never like to get too realistic, even though there was a frightening amount of momwallington62 that came pretty much directly from conversations I had on the subject with actual people.

    Chanelling my wife will get you nothing from me.

  • Paul||

    Hopefully they won't block me for the jest.

    Nah, I just wasted 'A' material on you. Do you have any idea how long it takes to write this stuff?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Arf, arf, MNG. The obvious sign that you need attention is that you came on a gun-control thread and you want to raise my mythical racism and my mythical comments about Palestine.

    Poor baby. Go play outside.

  • ||

    Off topic alert, but if you care what goes through drywall, these guys are the experts:
    www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm

  • Bags||

    Wow. Just wow. MNG's creepiness factor in this thread approaches OLS territory. Get your meds in balance, dude.

  • MNG||

    "Get your meds in balance, dude."

    Wow TAO, looks like you've got a boyfriend or alter ego. Maybe love will soften your callous heart?

    "The obvious sign that you need attention is that you came on a gun-control thread and you want to raise my mythical racism and my mythical comments about Palestine."

    Yeah TAO, because none of that explains why you have so much angry blame to heap on someonelike a poor mother (or the poor in general) but a reluctance to criticize the powerful or beneficiaries of power. No patterns there. It's not like a consistent attack on or double standard for those you see as weak or powerless.

    Erich Fromm (In Escape from Freedom, 1994: p. 167) was probably the first person to write about the Authoritarian Character:
    "Powerless people or institutions automatically arouse his contempt...The very sight of a powerless person makes him want to attack, dominate, humiliate..."

  • Golf Clap||

  • sackofshit||

    erich fromm had, more or less, nothing to say, and his belief in 'positive' freedom, as it was later called, is completely illogical. of course, since he was a socialist, [i]he[/i] knew what defined and constituted 'positive' liberty. i should also mentioned that the fact he saw liberty as a 'burden' is rather humorous

  • sackofshit||

    my english is not so good, sorry

  • nobody u no and a big fan of j||

    Right on MNG!!!

    But of course all poor people are poor because of their own stupid decisions. They chose to be born into homes that didn't value education, and homes where they were ignored growing up and did not develop the cultural and social capital that research demonstrates is the greatest predictor of school success (James Coleman's work), they chose to be born at higher rates among people who still face discrimination because their ancestors efficacy in life was undercut by being forcibly enslaved and segregated from major opportunities.

    They chose it.


    Your sarcasm is not lost on me.

  • nobody u no and a big fan of j||

  • sackofshit||

    no its just not worth it to point out how utterly retarded it is, and that he seems to believe 'deserve' and 'need' is a mystical force that rules the cosmos

  • nobody u no and a big fan of j||

    As stated earlier by a poster who seems to think I ma some sort of exstremeist, gusn should only be in the hands of properly trained law enforcement personnel.

    I also agree that the current crop is lacking, so am not against a wholesale replacement of current police with masters educated persons.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Yes, my libertarianism is totally a philosophy that supports force, governmental power and authoritarianism.

    good call, old man.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Xanthippas,

    Props on the name. I love the classics.

  • ||

    "I bet the red coats had wonderful manners and loving families back home, but we killed em dead because they taxed like democrats."

    Well technically, they were shooting at us too.


    Minor detail...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement